She's very weird full stop. The "I don't care ?" jacket was weird, as are a lot of her facial expressios.
She's married. To Donald. Trump.
The prosecution rests.
There was a school of thought that she was effectively being held hostage.
Various Internet personalities would parse her mannequin-blank visage or dodgy interior design taste as obvious cries for help.
But, no. Turns out she’s madder than Mark Francois looking at the menu in a Cafe Rouge in Basildon.
Reportedly she doesn't exactly live with the Donald as a normal married couple would. But she has to listen to him. Look at him. Do sexual things with him.
Regarding Shagger's bike ride. Its not the distance that is the problem. It is the timing. When the pox is destroying London and people are almost being begged by the government to stay at home, riding across London is not the right message to be giving out.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
A few points
Since you are talking specifically about the 2016 vote rather than what happened afterwards, how do you tolerate a minority view in a binary question? You can't. Either one side wins or the other does.
You do realise that it is legally impossible under the basic treaties governing the existence of the EU for us to remain part of the Customs Union without being members of the EU?
I am afraid your view of democracy appears to be that people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and so should not be allowed to. When the representatives stop serving the people and are only interested in serving themselves and their own partial views then representative democracy is no longer working. That was undoubtedly the case in 2016 which was why it was necessary to have a direct vote on a matter the representatives consistently refused to address.
The only thing bogus is your claim to be interested in democracy. You are not. You are only interested in getting what you want and fuck anyone else who disagrees with you. You are as bad as Johnson and the rest of the politicians on both sides.
Question. What is the difference between "the" Customs Union and "a" Customs Union...?
Sorry RP I missed this earlier in answering the later questions. Too many comments tonight.
'The Customs Union' is a unique structure within the EU. It is built into and governed by the basic treaties that govern the running of the EU. As such it is only available to members of the EU. None of the EFTA members if the EEA can be in Customs Union even if they wanted to.
A customs union (I use the lower case to differentiate) is basically any other customs union between two countries or groups of countries. The only country to be in a customs union with the EU is Turkey and it is a very very poor deal. In theory Turkey is able to make separate trade deals with other countries but the problem is that any country that has a trade deal with the EU gets automatic tariff free access to Turkey without the reciprocal arrangement. SO they can impose tariffs on Turkey but Turkey cannot impose tariffs on them. It is why Turkey made it clear that if TTIP was passed they would have to leave the customs union with the EU. They simply could not afford to have the US have tariff free access to their markets without a reciprocal arrangement.
The key seems to be the batshit Tory delusion that having left the EU we would be able to negotiate better deals having become economically smaller and politically less relevant.
I don't think that anyone proposed directly copying the Turkey customs union for the UK, merely to show that customs deals were there to be done. Unlike Turkey the UK wasn't seen by many EU countries as an invading threat...
The countries who saw Turkey as an invading threat did not join the EU until almost a decade after the customs union was agreed.
On a lighter note, the replies to this are really rather good (albeit very unfair, since couriers are extremely efficient on the whole, the occasional glitch notwithstanding):
I was slightly underwhelmed by the comment today that outside the priority groups by Autumn everybody should have been offered a vaccine shot. By April / May, we should be swimming in vaccines, we could have 4 different ones approved, including potentially the J&J one jab one. With all that supply available, it should really be time to put the hammer down and do millions every week.
Remember Adam Smith Institute said, every week of lockdown is £5bn in government support and £6bn in lost economic activity. That should drive whatever it costs to man large scale vaccinations centres for as many hours as possible.
I was thinking about that earlier when Hancock talked about the number of vaccine volunteers and NHS staff etc. Given the economic cost it would be well worth paying some serious dosh to say 100,000 people for a few months to use up all the vaccines we have. There is simply no reason to be limited by anything other than the supply.
Not sure money is the problem. Seems to be a lot of needless barriers with retired GPs complaining they have to fill in 15 forms just to volunteer and so on.
Why do they need any forms?
Were they listed at the GMC?
Have they been struck off?
Er, that's it.
There is no shortage of staff to do jabs. The problem has been lack of supply. Whether that is still the case, we shall see.
She's very weird full stop. The "I don't care ?" jacket was weird, as are a lot of her facial expressios.
She's married. To Donald. Trump.
The prosecution rests.
There was a school of thought that she was effectively being held hostage.
Various Internet personalities would parse her mannequin-blank visage or dodgy interior design taste as obvious cries for help.
But, no. Turns out she’s madder than Mark Francois looking at the menu in a Cafe Rouge in Basildon.
Reportedly she doesn't exactly live with the Donald as a normal married couple would. But she has to listen to him. Look at him. Do sexual things with him.
Its understandable she's gone mad.
I suspect she and he have a sexless marriage.
So how do you explain Barron Trump?
A turkey baster?
I’m prepared to believe they had sexual relations 15 years ago.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
I just don't see why they are even thinking of a public inauguration.
To show the idiots they can't overturn the democratic process. It is symbolically very important.
Plus the fact you just know there are going to be about 3 times as many people there as there were for Trump which will also say something important about the process.
The model suggests that two in five people have been infected in six London and south-eastern local authorities: Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Thurrock, Redbridge, Havering and Tower Hamlets.
The London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Newham are each estimated to have had well over 100,000 coronavirus infections each, around 54.2% and 49% of their populations respectively.
then new infections in that area should start to drop soon as local herd immunity is approached.
Regarding Shagger's bike ride. Its not the distance that is the problem. It is the timing. When the pox is destroying London and people are almost being begged by the government to stay at home, riding across London is not the right message to be giving out.
Its "You Must Stay At Home like I'm not"
But you are allowed out for exercise, aren't you?
Yes you are, and only this morning a government minister (Zahawi I think) was on the media round telling people to stay local.
Either the government wants to get across the Stay at Home message or it doesn't. They can send the PM to Brizzle to pose in a vaccination centre knowing what impact the pictures will have, yet seem blind to the impact of him cycling across London.
There are a lot of supposedly ‘intelligent’ people on this forum particularly various Corbyn hating centrists who will not be named who are not very good at psephology and only predict what they want to predict. Whatever one thinks of HYUFD his predictions are a lot more accurate than those people.
This is my ‘curve ball’ prediction for the Holyrood election BTW:
SNP 55 (-8) Con 33 (+2) Lab 28 (+4) LD 7 (+2) Grn 6 (-)
SNP gain From Con Edinburgh Central Grn gain from SNP Glasgow Kelvin Con gain from SNP Banffshire Perthshire South Aberdeenshire East Moray
Lab gain from SNP Rutherglen Cowdenbeath
Survation was an accurate pollster last time and that is showing more stable/better figures for Scottish Labour i.e. 20% of the list vote before I get shot down in flames. Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath was close in 2019 (yes I know about the candidate) and the Ferrier effect might occur in Rutherglen.
If only.
What would happen if this were the result? SNP minority, with budget support from Green and LD?
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
That well known fascist state Switzerland would beg to differ.
She's very weird full stop. The "I don't care ?" jacket was weird, as are a lot of her facial expressios.
She's married. To Donald. Trump.
The prosecution rests.
There was a school of thought that she was effectively being held hostage.
Various Internet personalities would parse her mannequin-blank visage or dodgy interior design taste as obvious cries for help.
But, no. Turns out she’s madder than Mark Francois looking at the menu in a Cafe Rouge in Basildon.
Reportedly she doesn't exactly live with the Donald as a normal married couple would. But she has to listen to him. Look at him. Do sexual things with him.
I see the dead cat in Scotland, whining about football to distract from Salmond's revelation.
To be honest, I think Nicola did well. This is what happened when Labour are left to handle sex allegations against politicians.
1. An anonymous SPAD accuses a minister of undefined sexual allegations.
2. The minister is sacked.
3. The First Minister leaks all the details to the press without any investigation or attempt to hear the minister's defence or side of the story.
4. The now ex-minister hangs himself in his home in Connah's Quay.
5. The First Minister is overcome with what looks very like guilt, and resigns.
6. There is an inquiry.
7. The Labour Party (with their little helpers the LibDems) vote to ensure the inquiry into what happened is never made public. No one (outside a very few) knows who made the allegation, what the allegations were, or even whether Carl Sergeant was a bully or a victim.
8. Mark Drakeford is elected First Minister by the Labour Party.
I just don't see why they are even thinking of a public inauguration.
To show the idiots they can't overturn the democratic process. It is symbolically very important.
Plus the fact you just know there are going to be about 3 times as many people there as there were for Trump which will also say something important about the process.
Quite right too. These nutters spent 8 years claiming Obama wasn't American. They are certain to try to pretend that Biden never took the oath of office because it was done in a bunker, because they were running around outside punching cops.
Plus, the most important reason of all: YOU NEVER CEDE THE PUBLIC SQUARE TO FASCISTS. That's a stop along their route to victory.
The model suggests that two in five people have been infected in six London and south-eastern local authorities: Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Thurrock, Redbridge, Havering and Tower Hamlets.
The London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Newham are each estimated to have had well over 100,000 coronavirus infections each, around 54.2% and 49% of their populations respectively.
then new infections in that area should start to drop soon as local herd immunity is approached.
Seems a little high to me, but probably not by a ridiculous amount.
She's very weird full stop. The "I don't care ?" jacket was weird, as are a lot of her facial expressios.
She's married. To Donald. Trump.
The prosecution rests.
There was a school of thought that she was effectively being held hostage.
Various Internet personalities would parse her mannequin-blank visage or dodgy interior design taste as obvious cries for help.
But, no. Turns out she’s madder than Mark Francois looking at the menu in a Cafe Rouge in Basildon.
Reportedly she doesn't exactly live with the Donald as a normal married couple would. But she has to listen to him. Look at him. Do sexual things with him.
I just don't see why they are even thinking of a public inauguration.
To show the idiots they can't overturn the democratic process. It is symbolically very important.
Plus the fact you just know there are going to be about 3 times as many people there as there were for Trump which will also say something important about the process.
Quite right too. These nutters spent 8 years claiming Obama wasn't American. They are certain to try to pretend that Biden never took the oath of office because it was done in a bunker, because they were running around outside punching cops.
Plus, the most important reason of all: YOU NEVER CEDE THE PUBLIC SQUARE TO FASCISTS. That's a stop along their route to victory.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
I can't stand Johnson but it is pretty bloody obvious that a vote for him in 2019 was a vote for this Brexit.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
That well known fascist state Switzerland would beg to differ.
Although I think @gealbhan overstates his case, Cameron’s referendum was constitutional vandalism.
Referenda don’t quite mesh with the Westminster system.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t have them, but they need very carefully prep by a body of experts.
We Brexited by a relatively small margin, after a single vote, and not all nations of our increasingly federal state voted for it.
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent.
2. William Trevor: "The Old Boys", "The Children of Dynmouth" and "Felicia's Journey" are 3 of his best novels. Also "Fools of Fortune". And he is the absolute master of the short story. Get his Collected Stories. Each of them a marvel. No-one writes about evil better or about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives or pins down the absurdities and hypocrisies of every-day life. And he can be laugh-out loud funny too. Lots of his work has been made into films - especially by the BBC in the days when they did such things.
3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" is wonderful. But all three of his novels are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young.
4. JG McGahern: "Amongst Women" and "That They May Face the Rising Sun" are both wonderful. Some of his earlier novels like "The Barracks" tell you all you need to know about the dark underbelly of Irish domestic life. His "Memoir" is a love letter to his mother. The contrast between the relationship he had with his mother who died too young and the brutality and callousness of his father is unbearable but so well written.
Present-day writers I cannot abide: Hilary Mantel, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis.
I have heard J G Farrell is great, you might have suaded me to try him.
Another one in favour of JG Farrell - he writes very well, and funnily of the British Empire in extremis - in The Siege of Krishnapur as the British get increasingly desperate and retreat further and further into the residence they run out of canon balls and are reduced to loading the canons with cutlery - he describes how a brave Sikh is "plucked from this world by a pair of sugar tongs embedded in his skull". What he would have made of Brexit, goodness only knows, but it would have been entertaining and well worth reading.
Did you watch The Singapore Grip televisualisation in the end? I thought it was an absolute stinker.
I've been putting it off - having heard some of the reviews!
Interesting to compare Julie Hartley Brewer with Marina Hyde. One is witty and cutting. The other a tedious bore. Why does the tedious bore get quoted and requoted? Is it because one requires a bit of effort and the other doesn't?
Interesting to compare Julie Hartley Brewer with Marina Hyde. One is witty and cutting. The other a tedious bore. Why does the tedious bore get quoted and requoted? Is it because one requires a bit of effort and the other doesn't?
On a lighter note, the replies to this are really rather good (albeit very unfair, since couriers are extremely efficient on the whole, the occasional glitch notwithstanding):
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
I can't stand Johnson but it is pretty bloody obvious that a vote for him in 2019 was a vote for this Brexit.
A government elected in 2019. A deal published over Xmas 2020 that’s still not been properly scrutinised. How could the 2019 be a thumbs up to something that didn’t exist for 12 months? You either leave in out and new deal to parliamentary democracy, or you allow the electors to back or reject the idea “can have a better deal?” with “go and negotiate it then and I’ll tell you what I think of it.”
Direct democracy relies so much on the quality of the debate. lets look at this and mark how legitimate 2016 is? Did the campaign inform the voters or confuse or mislead them? When people voted were they sure what they would be getting? Were all the risks with both options fully appreciated?
What you are standing by here is the flimsiest of mandates. It gives two fingers to faith representative democracy is far stronger.
Calling Brexit referendum of 2016 democracy is a Trumpian attack on Western Democracy.
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent.
2. William Trevor: "The Old Boys", "The Children of Dynmouth" and "Felicia's Journey" are 3 of his best novels. Also "Fools of Fortune". And he is the absolute master of the short story. Get his Collected Stories. Each of them a marvel. No-one writes about evil better or about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives or pins down the absurdities and hypocrisies of every-day life. And he can be laugh-out loud funny too. Lots of his work has been made into films - especially by the BBC in the days when they did such things.
3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" is wonderful. But all three of his novels are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young.
4. JG McGahern: "Amongst Women" and "That They May Face the Rising Sun" are both wonderful. Some of his earlier novels like "The Barracks" tell you all you need to know about the dark underbelly of Irish domestic life. His "Memoir" is a love letter to his mother. The contrast between the relationship he had with his mother who died too young and the brutality and callousness of his father is unbearable but so well written.
Present-day writers I cannot abide: Hilary Mantel, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis.
I have heard J G Farrell is great, you might have suaded me to try him.
Another one in favour of JG Farrell - he writes very well, and funnily of the British Empire in extremis - in The Siege of Krishnapur as the British get increasingly desperate and retreat further and further into the residence they run out of canon balls and are reduced to loading the canons with cutlery - he describes how a brave Sikh is "plucked from this world by a pair of sugar tongs embedded in his skull". What he would have made of Brexit, goodness only knows, but it would have been entertaining and well worth reading.
Did you watch The Singapore Grip televisualisation in the end? I thought it was an absolute stinker.
I've been putting it off - having heard some of the reviews!
It was ok overall. I think the issue was the makers couldn't decide whether to make it a satirical black comendy or a costume drama, and it fell somewhere between the two. But there was plenty to enjoy.
I've not read the book but assume it is satirical in the mode of Catch-22?
If any actor ever deserved a knighthood it is Brian Blessed. The man really is a national institution.
I've seen him live and met him on several occasions. Has time for every fan.
I was in the audience when he presented HIGNFY in 2008, one of the funniest things I've ever experienced.
Hearing him talking about telling Pablo Picasso he couldn't draw and one of his proudest moments being punching the Dalai Lama is just wonderful.
I visited his house because I was asking his wife if she would stand at the local elections as a paper candidate several decades ago. He arrived home while I was there. He was as terrifying in real life as he appears in public.. Their home was amazing, but not in a way you might imagine.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
I can't stand Johnson but it is pretty bloody obvious that a vote for him in 2019 was a vote for this Brexit.
A government elected in 2019. A deal published over Xmas 2020 that’s still not been properly scrutinised. How could the 2019 be a thumbs up to something that didn’t exist for 12 months? You either leave in out and new deal to parliamentary democracy, or you allow the electors to back or reject the idea “can have a better deal?” with “go and negotiate it then and I’ll tell you what I think of it.”
Direct democracy relies so much on the quality of the debate. lets look at this and mark how legitimate 2016 is? Did the campaign inform the voters or confuse or mislead them? When people voted were they sure what they would be getting? Were all the risks with both options fully appreciated?
What you are standing by here is the flimsiest of mandates. It gives two fingers to faith representative democracy is far stronger.
Calling Brexit referendum of 2016 democracy is a Trumpian attack on Western Democracy.
Of the 13.966m who voted Conservative in 2019, the vote of at least 13.965m was for "Brexit - JFDI."
A flying fuck for the precise format was given by precisely none.
On a lighter note, the replies to this are really rather good (albeit very unfair, since couriers are extremely efficient on the whole, the occasional glitch notwithstanding):
Hermes are truly and consistently appalling though.
I think it must depend on the local distributor.
The guy that delivers for Hermes round our way is an absolute star, works his sock off, is always helpful, and (by his own account) rearranges his delivery shcedule to make it more sensible because the one his is given would turn his route into spaghetti...
...which is probalby not a great endorsement of Hermes.
If any actor ever deserved a knighthood it is Brian Blessed. The man really is a national institution.
I've seen him live and met him on several occasions. Has time for every fan.
I was in the audience when he presented HIGNFY in 2008, one of the funniest things I've ever experienced.
Hearing him talking about telling Pablo Picasso he couldn't draw and one of his proudest moments being punching the Dalai Lama is just wonderful.
I visited his house because I was asking his wife if she would stand at the local elections as a paper candidate several decades ago. He arrived home while I was there. He was as terrifying in real life as he appears in public.. Their home was amazing, but not in a way you might imagine.
I should qualify, but I am sure you all know what I mean: terrifying in the nicest possible way.
The model suggests that two in five people have been infected in six London and south-eastern local authorities: Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Thurrock, Redbridge, Havering and Tower Hamlets.
The London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Newham are each estimated to have had well over 100,000 coronavirus infections each, around 54.2% and 49% of their populations respectively.
then new infections in that area should start to drop soon as local herd immunity is approached.
We live in Havering and my girlfriend works in a school in TH. She asked her boss if she could work from home as we are struggling for childcare and he said she should bring our 1yo son to work with her (a school that doesn’t have the heating on and has the windows open) or find a nursery near there.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
I can't stand Johnson but it is pretty bloody obvious that a vote for him in 2019 was a vote for this Brexit.
A government elected in 2019. A deal published over Xmas 2020 that’s still not been properly scrutinised. How could the 2019 be a thumbs up to something that didn’t exist for 12 months? You either leave in out and new deal to parliamentary democracy, or you allow the electors to back or reject the idea “can have a better deal?” with “go and negotiate it then and I’ll tell you what I think of it.”
Direct democracy relies so much on the quality of the debate. lets look at this and mark how legitimate 2016 is? Did the campaign inform the voters or confuse or mislead them? When people voted were they sure what they would be getting? Were all the risks with both options fully appreciated?
What you are standing by here is the flimsiest of mandates. It gives two fingers to faith representative democracy is far stronger.
Calling Brexit referendum of 2016 democracy is a Trumpian attack on Western Democracy.
Of the 13.966m who voted Conservative in 2019, the vote of at least 13.965m was for "Brexit - JFDI."
A flying fuck for the precise format was given by precisely none.
Here’s your flying ****
It only takes a teeny counterfactual to prove you wrong.
Labour, LibDem, and SNP got enough seats in 2017 to form government and negotiate the Brexit deal. In fact they hired Richard Tyndall as chief negotiator and the result is something Richard is completely happy with, whether he compromised on CU membership to get it over the line or not.
Does ERG, Boris, Farage accept that Brexit deal? Do they even recognise it as Brexit? Do they go around saying “it is pretty bloody obvious the vote for Labour coalition in 2017 was a vote for this Brexit” and that’s Brexit democratically sealed and put to bed.
Now can you see how democratically wrong it is where we are and how we got here?
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent.
2. William Trevor: "The Old Boys", "The Children of Dynmouth" and "Felicia's Journey" are 3 of his best novels. Also "Fools of Fortune". And he is the absolute master of the short story. Get his Collected Stories. Each of them a marvel. No-one writes about evil better or about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives or pins down the absurdities and hypocrisies of every-day life. And he can be laugh-out loud funny too. Lots of his work has been made into films - especially by the BBC in the days when they did such things.
3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" is wonderful. But all three of his novels are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young.
4. JG McGahern: "Amongst Women" and "That They May Face the Rising Sun" are both wonderful. Some of his earlier novels like "The Barracks" tell you all you need to know about the dark underbelly of Irish domestic life. His "Memoir" is a love letter to his mother. The contrast between the relationship he had with his mother who died too young and the brutality and callousness of his father is unbearable but so well written.
Present-day writers I cannot abide: Hilary Mantel, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis.
I have heard J G Farrell is great, you might have suaded me to try him.
Another one in favour of JG Farrell - he writes very well, and funnily of the British Empire in extremis - in The Siege of Krishnapur as the British get increasingly desperate and retreat further and further into the residence they run out of canon balls and are reduced to loading the canons with cutlery - he describes how a brave Sikh is "plucked from this world by a pair of sugar tongs embedded in his skull". What he would have made of Brexit, goodness only knows, but it would have been entertaining and well worth reading.
Did you watch The Singapore Grip televisualisation in the end? I thought it was an absolute stinker.
I've been putting it off - having heard some of the reviews!
It had its moments, but some of the changes in the last part didn't really work.
I read and enjoyed Farrell's book.
I also remember reading Empire of The Sun by J G Ballard during a wet summer in The Lake District.
At the moment, I am reading The Fortress by Alexander Watson, which covers the Russian siege of Przemysl in the First World War. Ethnic and religious cleansing was thrown into the mix of the brutality of a medieval siege. The Tsarist regime's virulent anti semitism is chilling, and the Austo-Hungarian forces' cruelty isn't understated. Gallicia was turned over, and over again by rapacious armies fighting a final dynastic war.
Move on 20 years or so with racial and class warfare underpinning the violence of Nazi and Soviet forces.
She's very weird full stop. The "I don't care ?" jacket was weird, as are a lot of her facial expressios.
She's married. To Donald. Trump.
The prosecution rests.
There was a school of thought that she was effectively being held hostage.
Various Internet personalities would parse her mannequin-blank visage or dodgy interior design taste as obvious cries for help.
But, no. Turns out she’s madder than Mark Francois looking at the menu in a Cafe Rouge in Basildon.
Reportedly she doesn't exactly live with the Donald as a normal married couple would. But she has to listen to him. Look at him. Do sexual things with him.
Its understandable she's gone mad.
I suspect she and he have a sexless marriage.
So how do you explain Barron Trump?
A turkey baster?
A virgin birth. That will get the faithfuul on board for his Presidential Run in about 16 years.
The model suggests that two in five people have been infected in six London and south-eastern local authorities: Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Thurrock, Redbridge, Havering and Tower Hamlets.
The London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Newham are each estimated to have had well over 100,000 coronavirus infections each, around 54.2% and 49% of their populations respectively.
then new infections in that area should start to drop soon as local herd immunity is approached.
... or at least level off initially. And that's broadly what seems to be happening. For the averaged 7 days to 6th Jan, when the UK increase was about +35%, rates of increase in these boroughs were pretty static i.e. Barking and Dagenham +9.2%, Newham +11%, Thurrock -4.3%, Redbridge +1.5%, Havering +1%, Tower Hamlets +0.9%. The pattern's the same in Kent +0.2%, Essex +2.2%, Medway -7.7% and Southend -8.1%.
So the areas where the new variant impacted first spread also to have been the first where the rise in case numbers has been just about stopped, even while it rose rapidly in the UK as a whole. That seems pretty consistent with those areas also being the first to benefit from a degree of herd immunity.
On national figures, up to 11th Jan, the 7 day average of cases for the whole UK seems no higher than for 6th Jan. So when the local authority averages are updated I would expect to see downward trends in Kent, Essex and East London.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
I can't stand Johnson but it is pretty bloody obvious that a vote for him in 2019 was a vote for this Brexit.
A government elected in 2019. A deal published over Xmas 2020 that’s still not been properly scrutinised. How could the 2019 be a thumbs up to something that didn’t exist for 12 months? You either leave in out and new deal to parliamentary democracy, or you allow the electors to back or reject the idea “can have a better deal?” with “go and negotiate it then and I’ll tell you what I think of it.”
Direct democracy relies so much on the quality of the debate. lets look at this and mark how legitimate 2016 is? Did the campaign inform the voters or confuse or mislead them? When people voted were they sure what they would be getting? Were all the risks with both options fully appreciated?
What you are standing by here is the flimsiest of mandates. It gives two fingers to faith representative democracy is far stronger.
Calling Brexit referendum of 2016 democracy is a Trumpian attack on Western Democracy.
Of the 13.966m who voted Conservative in 2019, the vote of at least 13.965m was for "Brexit - JFDI."
A flying fuck for the precise format was given by precisely none.
Here’s your flying ****
It only takes a teeny counterfactual to prove you wrong.
Labour, LibDem, and SNP got enough seats in 2017 to form government and negotiate the Brexit deal. In fact they hired Richard Tyndall as chief negotiator and the result is something Richard is completely happy with, whether he compromised on CU membership to get it over the line or not.
Does ERG, Boris, Farage accept that Brexit deal? Do they even recognise it as Brexit? Do they go around saying “it is pretty bloody obvious the vote for Labour coalition in 2017 was a vote for this Brexit” and that’s Brexit democratically sealed and put to bed.
Now can you see how democratically wrong it is where we are and how we got here?
It’s a two fingers to democracy bounce.
And the prime enabler of this happening was neither Cummings, Boris, Farrage, the media, ahead of the game analytics or Putins keyboard army or even the billionaires who funded leave. It was Corbyn happening to be Labour Leader with his coterie of unreconstructed Bennites around him.
The horror, the absolute horror of Boris being 7 miles from Downing St on his bike 🤣🤣🤣
I'm curious how many bike riders would consider 7 miles to be "not local".
Is he supposed to go up and down his own street FFS? 7 miles on a bike seems reasonable to me. 🤷🏻♂️
The average cyclist cycles about 20 miles per hour. So being 7 miles away is about 21 minutes of cycling for an average person. Is that meant to be unreasonable?
20mph is reasonably quick. For someone like Boris about 13mph is more likely. Still, 7 miles is not far at all.
I'm not very fit (and only slightly younger than the PM) and my normal trundle to a cafe if I'm not feeling energetic is 20 miles each way. Not that I'm doing that at the moment.
I reckon a reasonable limit should be a distance you are prepared to walk home in an emergency if your car or bike breaks down so that you can avoid extra contacts. For me that's about 5-10 miles.
The average cyclist cycles about 20 miles per hour. So being 7 miles away is about 21 minutes of cycling for an average person. Is that meant to be unreasonable?
32km/h is about 220W. There is no way a fat useless piece of shit like Johnson can sustain over 200W for an hour.
If those Frank Luntz polling is really how Trump voters feel, that's civil war stuff. OK, bit hyperbolic, highly likely to see further political violence / terrorism in the name of this cult.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
That well known fascist state Switzerland would beg to differ.
Yep, California and Colorado aren't exactly known for fascism either.
But what those have in common is that they take the decision of when to call referenda out of the hands of politicians. So politicians can't just call them to validate their own decisions.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
I can't stand Johnson but it is pretty bloody obvious that a vote for him in 2019 was a vote for this Brexit.
A government elected in 2019. A deal published over Xmas 2020 that’s still not been properly scrutinised. How could the 2019 be a thumbs up to something that didn’t exist for 12 months? You either leave in out and new deal to parliamentary democracy, or you allow the electors to back or reject the idea “can have a better deal?” with “go and negotiate it then and I’ll tell you what I think of it.”
Direct democracy relies so much on the quality of the debate. lets look at this and mark how legitimate 2016 is? Did the campaign inform the voters or confuse or mislead them? When people voted were they sure what they would be getting? Were all the risks with both options fully appreciated?
What you are standing by here is the flimsiest of mandates. It gives two fingers to faith representative democracy is far stronger.
Calling Brexit referendum of 2016 democracy is a Trumpian attack on Western Democracy.
Of the 13.966m who voted Conservative in 2019, the vote of at least 13.965m was for "Brexit - JFDI."
A flying fuck for the precise format was given by precisely none.
Here’s your flying ****
It only takes a teeny counterfactual to prove you wrong.
Labour, LibDem, and SNP got enough seats in 2017 to form government and negotiate the Brexit deal. In fact they hired Richard Tyndall as chief negotiator and the result is something Richard is completely happy with, whether he compromised on CU membership to get it over the line or not.
Does ERG, Boris, Farage accept that Brexit deal? Do they even recognise it as Brexit? Do they go around saying “it is pretty bloody obvious the vote for Labour coalition in 2017 was a vote for this Brexit” and that’s Brexit democratically sealed and put to bed.
Now can you see how democratically wrong it is where we are and how we got here?
It’s a two fingers to democracy bounce.
I would point out that my position consistently was that, having won, we should leave. Even if that leave was not one I was happy with, for the democratic circle to have been closed it only required that we leave the structures of the EU. Everything else was up for debate, negotiation and argument.
Not to leave would, to me, have been a fundamental negation of democracy. When you get to the point where you results are ignored because those in power don't like them then you no longer live in a democracy. To have not left the EU would have been the British equivalent of Trump's attempted coup.
But we did leave so I have no issue at all with people debating or enacting, if they are in power, whatever form of relationship they prefer with the EU. That would include campaigning to rejoin. I think it would be bloody stupid but that is everyone's right.
I do think it is unfortunate that the two PMs in charge of negotiating Brexit were a Remainer authoritarian cyborg who understood and cared as little about Brexit as she did about actual flesh and blood human beings and a lazy narcissistic chancer who was unfit to be in charge of the gents loos at Kings Cross station. But then there are very few politicians anywhere in Europe I would consider fit to hold office.
If those Frank Luntz polling is really how Trump voters feel, that's civil war stuff. OK, bit hyperbolic, highly likely to see further political violence / terrorism in the name of this cult.
I'm not surprised by the figures, because both sides never make any effort to be conciliatory to each other. Personally I think Democrat elites are slightly more to blame for the situation with comments like the "deplorables" one by HC.
Everything pundits are getting wrong about this current moment in content moderation: An ongoing list https://jilliancyork.com/2021/01/10/everything-pundits-are-getting-wrong-about-this-moment-in-platform-regulation-an-ongoing-list/ ... First of all, the only “precedent” set here is that this is indeed the first time a sitting US president has been deplatformed by a tech company. I suppose that if your entire worldview is what happens in the United States, you might be surprised. But were you took outside that narrow lens, you would see that Facebook has booted off Lebanese politicians, Burmese generals, and even other right-wing US politicians…nevermind the millions of others who have been booted by these platforms, often without cause, often while engaging in protected speech under any definition.
2020 alone saw the (wrongful, even in light of platform policies) deplatforming of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people using terms related to Iran (including a Los Angeles-based crafter’s “Persian dolls” by Etsy) in an overzealous effort by companies to comply with sanctions; the booting of Palestinian speakers from Zoom on incorrectly-analyzed legal grounds; the deplatforming by Twitter of dozens of leftist Jews and Palestinians for clapping back at harassers, and so much more...
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
That well known fascist state Switzerland would beg to differ.
Yep, California and Colorado aren't exactly known for fascism either.
But what those have in common is that they take the decision of when to call referenda out of the hands of politicians. So politicians can't just call them to validate their own decisions.
I'm all for a bit more direct democracy, but I'm not sure that California is the model I'd choose. Essentially you have a situation here where the citizens vote in referendums:
- not to allow tax rises - to require a balanced budget - to spend more on education etc.
It's a ratbag of conflicting demands that often bear no relation to the manifesto promises of the elected politicians.
That article reads like a daydream someone might have on a train journey, in which they convince themselves of both sides of the argument then realise none of it mattered anyway. How much did she get paid for it do you reckon?
I believe it is thought she gets paid about £100k a year for her column.
It's simply too soon for another GE, and I say this as the usual political wonk who loves GEs.
2015, 2017, 2019 and now 2021?! With major referendums in 2014 and 2016 and Scottish elections in 2016 and 2021 as well.
Brenda from Bristol would go mad.
And what does it get Johnson really? Maybe a two year extension to 2026 rather than 2024. And I can't see him gaining seats really. Sure 2019 proved wrong that Mike's point well made several years back that once a party in power starts to lose seats it never gains more until after its the opposition; but Starmer is a lot better than Corbyn, and the Conservatives are almost certainly at their max-seat total as it stands.
Going to the polls when you don't have to would probably result in, at best, a 10-20 seat loss for the Conservatives.
Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.
Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.
So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.
So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.
If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.
To an extent I agree with you. Brexit is shite (and not even you are really denying it now), but it's what it is and we have to make the best of it now. If you want to spin that state of affairs as a "new equilibrium", go ahead!
The "new equilibrium" really is the Phillip Thompson faction's ideology being more important than other people's livelihoods. It's tough telling people that when they have lost theirs.
....
I suspect NE Scottish fishing communities may not be as grateful to the Tories as some were hoping.
Quote from the UK government: “We are working closely with the industry to help understand and address the issue”. I feel they might have made the effort to understand the issue before proceeding with their stupid Brexit. Or at least had a vague curiosity about what the issues might be. Anyway they are blaming the SNP for all the problems, so that much was predictable.
It's a bit hard expecting the SG (not SNP!) to know everything about the new regs when the UK Gmt didn't get round to telling them, any more than it did anyone else. Let alone what the deal was going to be. What are they, mindreaders? Futurologists?
The SG are clearly out to thwart HMG's Brexit success. Even if the SG did have a way to solve all the issues, they wouldn't want to anyway, so it comes to the same thing and, obviously in that case the SG really are to blame !
But even if the SG are the ones who should be blamed - they can simply blame the UK Government and the majority of their Scottish population will agree with them.
Every Brexit disaster adds a few more votes for independence... So for the SNP there is zero downside here - do well and it's the SNP's wise decisions that solved the problem, got a problem and it isn't their fault, it's London's.
Two thirds of Scots voted Remain and haven't changed their minds. Just after the referendum you might occasionally bump into people who were happy to state their vote for Leave. You would be slightly taken aback and then think, "yes of course, they do exist". They are keeping quiet now. It's years since I have come across any Scot openly admit to being a Leaver. (Except on pb.com). It's very different from England.
Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.
Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.
So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.
So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.
If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.
To an extent I agree with you. Brexit is shite (and not even you are really denying it now), but it's what it is and we have to make the best of it now. If you want to spin that state of affairs as a "new equilibrium", go ahead!
The "new equilibrium" really is the Phillip Thompson faction's ideology being more important than other people's livelihoods. It's tough telling people that when they have lost theirs.
....
I suspect NE Scottish fishing communities may not be as grateful to the Tories as some were hoping.
Quote from the UK government: “We are working closely with the industry to help understand and address the issue”. I feel they might have made the effort to understand the issue before proceeding with their stupid Brexit. Or at least had a vague curiosity about what the issues might be. Anyway they are blaming the SNP for all the problems, so that much was predictable.
It's a bit hard expecting the SG (not SNP!) to know everything about the new regs when the UK Gmt didn't get round to telling them, any more than it did anyone else. Let alone what the deal was going to be. What are they, mindreaders? Futurologists?
The SG are clearly out to thwart HMG's Brexit success. Even if the SG did have a way to solve all the issues, they wouldn't want to anyway, so it comes to the same thing and, obviously in that case the SG really are to blame !
But even if the SG are the ones who should be blamed - they can simply blame the UK Government and the majority of their Scottish population will agree with them.
Every Brexit disaster adds a few more votes for independence... So for the SNP there is zero downside here - do well and it's the SNP's wise decisions that solved the problem, got a problem and it isn't their fault, it's London's.
Two thirds of Scots voted Remain and haven't changed their minds. Just after the referendum you might occasionally bump into people who were happy to state their vote for Leave. You would be slightly taken aback and then think, "yes of course, they do exist". They are keeping quiet now. It's years since I have come across any Scot openly admit to being a Leaver. (Except on pb.com). It's very different from England.
That article reads like a daydream someone might have on a train journey, in which they convince themselves of both sides of the argument then realise none of it mattered anyway. How much did she get paid for it do you reckon?
I believe it is thought she gets paid about £100k a year for her column.
It's simply too soon for another GE, and I say this as the usual political wonk who loves GEs.
2015, 2017, 2019 and now 2021?! With major referendums in 2014 and 2016 and Scottish elections in 2016 and 2021 as well.
Brenda from Bristol would go mad.
And what does it get Johnson really? Maybe a two year extension to 2026 rather than 2024. And I can't see him gaining seats really. Sure 2019 proved wrong that Mike's point well made several years back that once a party in power starts to lose seats it never gains more until after its the opposition; but Starmer is a lot better than Corbyn, and the Conservatives are almost certainly at their max-seat total as it stands.
Going to the polls when you don't have to would probably result in, at best, a 10-20 seat loss for the Conservatives.
They won't do it.
Polly Toynbee also appears to be unaware that new boundaries will not be in operation until mid-2023.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
If I was a fascist I would burn down representative democracy and shift to direct democracy straightaway, its chapter one in the fascist play book.
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
That well known fascist state Switzerland would beg to differ.
Yep, California and Colorado aren't exactly known for fascism either.
But what those have in common is that they take the decision of when to call referenda out of the hands of politicians. So politicians can't just call them to validate their own decisions.
I'm all for a bit more direct democracy, but I'm not sure that California is the model I'd choose. Essentially you have a situation here where the citizens vote in referendums:
- not to allow tax rises - to require a balanced budget - to spend more on education etc.
It's a ratbag of conflicting demands that often bear no relation to the manifesto promises of the elected politicians.
Yes. Thank you RCS. But how do you square your fancy for more direct democracy dropped unwisely and messily into representative system when you can see it doesn’t work.
Introducing direct democracy into representative democracy does not work. It is a fleshed out solution versus a concept, yet the representatives feel obliged to respect it and try to deliver it, even though it’s against their very purpose in representative democracy, in taking the concept, taking time, scrutinising it, and delivering something stronger and, well, more representative.
Here’s the fine example.
2016 was David Cameron’s tweak of our current membership versus a vaguer concept of leave, of out. If you voted remain you knew what you were getting, if you voted against Cameron’s deal you knew what you were voting against. But voting out, no one knew what they were voting for.
Absolutely no trade deal with EU so on WTO terms+ is the only way to sum out up. Every leave voter was voting for that?
And what was the further mechanism for democratically deciding what WTO terms+ actually is - Labour, Lib Dem’s, and SNP getting in in 2017 and telling us what it is? Parliament sealing their deal. The ERG and UKIP accepting this?
For direct democracy to have sealed this democratically, the concept of out should have been fleshed into a deal alongside David Cameron’s Flesh and Blood deal in 2016. The direct democracy vote should have been Cameron’s deal versus Boris’s. And even then, Direct democracy relies so much on the quality of the debate, the campaign inform the voters not confuse or mislead them, When people vote they sure what they are getting, all the risks with both options fully appreciated.
How do you feel that one would have gone, leavers? Confident? No you’re not. And that’s exactly the point of UKs greatest ever folly, from our democratically weakest ever moment.
Comments
A turkey baster?
https://twitter.com/royalacademy/status/1348647645418577921
https://twitter.com/JamesPindell/status/1348605210344697858
2019 was not about accepting or rejecting merits of a customs Union or any other part of Brexit, it was choosing between out of date IRA sympathiser or lying buffoon for prime minister! Don’t try to pretend otherwise. You don’t genuinely believe 2019 vote legitimise 2020 Brexit deal?
2016 didn’t have to be an in out referendum. There didn’t have to be a referendum. In fact to have a leave regardless on new deal all wrapped up in one vote can’t even be called democracy, it’s just insane, it operates in a world where you call yourself out, sunlit uplands, regardless what new trade deal replaces it. Where’s the definition of out? That wins has an affirmative vote on that “this is what put looks like” deal? That can then be properly measured as meeting all the promises or not?
Firstly, there is a difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And then there is the question of mixing the two. Once people vote in a referendum, what is the role of parliament and representatives?
We are here through something so half baked.
https://twitter.com/SH_CCG/status/1347656008462692353
Plus the fact you just know there are going to be about 3 times as many people there as there were for Trump which will also say something important about the process.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/jan/10/one-in-five-have-had-coronavirus-in-england-new-modelling-says
If they are correct about this:
The model suggests that two in five people have been infected in six London and south-eastern local authorities: Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Thurrock, Redbridge, Havering and Tower Hamlets.
The London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Newham are each estimated to have had well over 100,000 coronavirus infections each, around 54.2% and 49% of their populations respectively.
then new infections in that area should start to drop soon as local herd immunity is approached.
Either the government wants to get across the Stay at Home message or it doesn't. They can send the PM to Brizzle to pose in a vaccination centre knowing what impact the pictures will have, yet seem blind to the impact of him cycling across London.
What would happen if this were the result?
SNP minority, with budget support from Green and LD?
A: One does not simply walk into Mordor.
1. An anonymous SPAD accuses a minister of undefined sexual allegations.
2. The minister is sacked.
3. The First Minister leaks all the details to the press without any investigation or attempt to hear the minister's defence or side of the story.
4. The now ex-minister hangs himself in his home in Connah's Quay.
5. The First Minister is overcome with what looks very like guilt, and resigns.
6. There is an inquiry.
7. The Labour Party (with their little helpers the LibDems) vote to ensure the inquiry into what happened is never made public. No one (outside a very few) knows who made the allegation, what the allegations were, or even whether Carl Sergeant was a bully or a victim.
8. Mark Drakeford is elected First Minister by the Labour Party.
These nutters spent 8 years claiming Obama wasn't American. They are certain to try to pretend that Biden never took the oath of office because it was done in a bunker, because they were running around outside punching cops.
Plus, the most important reason of all: YOU NEVER CEDE THE PUBLIC SQUARE TO FASCISTS. That's a stop along their route to victory.
Referenda don’t quite mesh with the Westminster system.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t have them, but they need very carefully prep by a body of experts.
We Brexited by a relatively small margin, after a single vote, and not all nations of our increasingly federal state voted for it.
And here we are.
I was in the audience when he presented HIGNFY in 2008, one of the funniest things I've ever experienced.
https://covidtracker.fr/vaccintracker/
Given that France is following a two dose strategy that rate is not likely to accelerate quickly.
It's a mystery.
Direct democracy relies so much on the quality of the debate. lets look at this and mark how legitimate 2016 is? Did the campaign inform the voters or confuse or mislead them? When people voted were they sure what they would be getting? Were all the risks with both options fully appreciated?
What you are standing by here is the flimsiest of mandates. It gives two fingers to faith representative democracy is far stronger.
Calling Brexit referendum of 2016 democracy is a Trumpian attack on Western Democracy.
I've not read the book but assume it is satirical in the mode of Catch-22?
A flying fuck for the precise format was given by precisely none.
The guy that delivers for Hermes round our way is an absolute star, works his sock off, is always helpful, and (by his own account) rearranges his delivery shcedule to make it more sensible because the one his is given would turn his route into spaghetti...
...which is probalby not a great endorsement of Hermes.
Who knows how he will lash out when he starts to feel really desperate as the days slip away?
Get him out.
It only takes a teeny counterfactual to prove you wrong.
Labour, LibDem, and SNP got enough seats in 2017 to form government and negotiate the Brexit deal. In fact they hired Richard Tyndall as chief negotiator and the result is something Richard is completely happy with, whether he compromised on CU membership to get it over the line or not.
Does ERG, Boris, Farage accept that Brexit deal? Do they even recognise it as Brexit? Do they go around saying “it is pretty bloody obvious the vote for Labour coalition in 2017 was a vote for this Brexit” and that’s Brexit democratically sealed and put to bed.
Now can you see how democratically wrong it is where we are and how we got here?
It’s a two fingers to democracy bounce.
I read and enjoyed Farrell's book.
I also remember reading Empire of The Sun by J G Ballard during a wet summer in The Lake District.
At the moment, I am reading The Fortress by Alexander Watson, which covers the Russian siege of Przemysl in the First World War. Ethnic and religious cleansing was thrown into the mix of the brutality of a medieval siege. The Tsarist regime's virulent anti semitism is chilling, and the Austo-Hungarian forces' cruelty isn't understated. Gallicia was turned over, and over again by rapacious armies fighting a final dynastic war.
Move on 20 years or so with racial and class warfare underpinning the violence of Nazi and Soviet forces.
I do wonder if any European countries took advantage of the UK's earlier start to ask what was working best.
They would likely have discovered that care home vaccinations were difficult.
France and Belgium chose to learn that the hard way.
Barking and Dagenham +9.2%, Newham +11%, Thurrock -4.3%, Redbridge +1.5%, Havering +1%, Tower Hamlets +0.9%.
The pattern's the same in Kent +0.2%, Essex +2.2%, Medway -7.7% and Southend -8.1%.
So the areas where the new variant impacted first spread also to have been the first where the rise in case numbers has been just about stopped, even while it rose rapidly in the UK as a whole. That seems pretty consistent with those areas also being the first to benefit from a degree of herd immunity.
On national figures, up to 11th Jan, the 7 day average of cases for the whole UK seems no higher than for 6th Jan. So when the local authority averages are updated I would expect to see downward trends in Kent, Essex and East London.
I'm not very fit (and only slightly younger than the PM) and my normal trundle to a cafe if I'm not feeling energetic is 20 miles each way. Not that I'm doing that at the moment.
I reckon a reasonable limit should be a distance you are prepared to walk home in an emergency if your car or bike breaks down so that you can avoid extra contacts. For me that's about 5-10 miles.
They really are terrible.
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1348725433362042880?s=20
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1348731932830437377?s=20
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1348741202355474432?s=20
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1348747392275734531?s=20
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1348750903365406721?s=20
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1348754366904193028?s=20
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1348756315942785024?s=20
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/
But what those have in common is that they take the decision of when to call referenda out of the hands of politicians. So politicians can't just call them to validate their own decisions.
Not to leave would, to me, have been a fundamental negation of democracy. When you get to the point where you results are ignored because those in power don't like them then you no longer live in a democracy. To have not left the EU would have been the British equivalent of Trump's attempted coup.
But we did leave so I have no issue at all with people debating or enacting, if they are in power, whatever form of relationship they prefer with the EU. That would include campaigning to rejoin. I think it would be bloody stupid but that is everyone's right.
I do think it is unfortunate that the two PMs in charge of negotiating Brexit were a Remainer authoritarian cyborg who understood and cared as little about Brexit as she did about actual flesh and blood human beings and a lazy narcissistic chancer who was unfit to be in charge of the gents loos at Kings Cross station. But then there are very few politicians anywhere in Europe I would consider fit to hold office.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/big-story/uk-labour-antisemitism-why-it-has-become-impossible-criticise-israel
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55622331
https://jilliancyork.com/2021/01/10/everything-pundits-are-getting-wrong-about-this-moment-in-platform-regulation-an-ongoing-list/
... First of all, the only “precedent” set here is that this is indeed the first time a sitting US president has been deplatformed by a tech company. I suppose that if your entire worldview is what happens in the United States, you might be surprised. But were you took outside that narrow lens, you would see that Facebook has booted off Lebanese politicians, Burmese generals, and even other right-wing US politicians…nevermind the millions of others who have been booted by these platforms, often without cause, often while engaging in protected speech under any definition.
2020 alone saw the (wrongful, even in light of platform policies) deplatforming of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people using terms related to Iran (including a Los Angeles-based crafter’s “Persian dolls” by Etsy) in an overzealous effort by companies to comply with sanctions; the booting of Palestinian speakers from Zoom on incorrectly-analyzed legal grounds; the deplatforming by Twitter of dozens of leftist Jews and Palestinians for clapping back at harassers, and so much more...
- not to allow tax rises
- to require a balanced budget
- to spend more on education
etc.
It's a ratbag of conflicting demands that often bear no relation to the manifesto promises of the elected politicians.
2015, 2017, 2019 and now 2021?! With major referendums in 2014 and 2016 and Scottish elections in 2016 and 2021 as well.
Brenda from Bristol would go mad.
And what does it get Johnson really? Maybe a two year extension to 2026 rather than 2024. And I can't see him gaining seats really. Sure 2019 proved wrong that Mike's point well made several years back that once a party in power starts to lose seats it never gains more until after its the opposition; but Starmer is a lot better than Corbyn, and the Conservatives are almost certainly at their max-seat total as it stands.
Going to the polls when you don't have to would probably result in, at best, a 10-20 seat loss for the Conservatives.
They won't do it.
https://twitter.com/jonathanoosting/status/1347552416699449346
Introducing direct democracy into representative democracy does not work. It is a fleshed out solution versus a concept, yet the representatives feel obliged to respect it and try to deliver it, even though it’s against their very purpose in representative democracy, in taking the concept, taking time, scrutinising it, and delivering something stronger and, well, more representative.
Here’s the fine example.
2016 was David Cameron’s tweak of our current membership versus a vaguer concept of leave, of out. If you voted remain you knew what you were getting, if you voted against Cameron’s deal you knew what you were voting against. But voting out, no one knew what they were voting for.
Absolutely no trade deal with EU so on WTO terms+ is the only way to sum out up. Every leave voter was voting for that?
And what was the further mechanism for democratically deciding what WTO terms+ actually is - Labour, Lib Dem’s, and SNP getting in in 2017 and telling us what it is? Parliament sealing their deal. The ERG and UKIP accepting this?
For direct democracy to have sealed this democratically, the concept of out should have been fleshed into a deal alongside David Cameron’s Flesh and Blood deal in 2016. The direct democracy vote should have been Cameron’s deal versus Boris’s. And even then, Direct democracy relies so much on the quality of the debate, the campaign inform the voters not confuse or mislead them, When people vote they sure what they are getting, all the risks with both options fully appreciated.
How do you feel that one would have gone, leavers? Confident? No you’re not. And that’s exactly the point of UKs greatest ever folly, from our democratically weakest ever moment.