It was going to 30k of course, and when Farage said 300k he was a total clown.
The people in favour of mass immigration always grossly underestimate the amount of immigrants, whether out of deceit or ignorance. When they are inevitably shown to be wrong, the normal move is to say ‘but look at all the good they’ve done for the economy”
Or call the people who were right ‘racists’
Who remembers Remain’s ‘EURacists’?
Being concerned about immigration and wanting it reduced is no proof of racism. Absolutely not.
However, take a random sample of people for whom the above is not only a concern but just about their BIGGEST concern in politics, and you will find in that sample a degree of racism that's well above the norm.
It still startles me to hear of people having actually downloaded the app in the first place. I know lots did but I don’t understand why?
I wouldn't have thought it would be very hard to understand that we wanted to do our bit to help reduce the spread of a very nasty, often fatal, disease.
Yes exactly. I downloaded it for that reason. I've now turned off contact tracing on it and will probably delete it shortly because I feel I've done my bit and no longer agree with ongoing restrictions.
It certainly makes a lot less sense for those who are fully jabbed and thus much less likely to form part of a chain of infection. It would be far more sensible if on being pinged, the double-jabbed were asked to test themselves for a few days. As it is, people will, as you say, just switch if off. The government has tied itself into irrational knots on this as in many things.
Moron and Lineker...its all very Lawerence Fox...they constantly looking for outrage / validation on the twitters.
I am coming to the conclusion it is the new mid life crisis. Forget the penis extension sports car and the new younger girlfriend, it is now all about the retweets....
Really good news story and good work by Kwasi Kwarteng
You're milking it now.
While good news, in terms of vehicle manufacturing, the investment is peanuts (and the UK govt. seems to providing at least 20% of the money). ...Stellantis has held discussions with the UK government over options for its Cheshire factory and the company has secured UK government financial support understood to be in the tens of millions of pounds. The £100m is the total amount of investment, and includes the UK government support...
Note Stellantis are building two large battery plants on the continent, with a third planned. None here.
Nissan is still the only committed investment of any size for electric vehicles, and even that isn't massive.
The U.K. has always been tiny in comparison to the continent Where this OEM is concerned. There have been concerns about the long term viability of this plant going back many years. This is good news especially given the potential for parts distribution in the area similar to what we see adjacent to NMUK.
Of course this means the end of Vauxhall Car production in the U.K.
Remains to be seen what future Luton/IBC has.
The battery production will be a JV with Total. A French multinational. No prizes for guessing where most of the batteries will be made.
Have you read any of the articles regarding the investment - Luton is running at full capacity producing 100,000 vans a year.
Of course I have. None mentioned Luton but I did read in May they had put another shift on to meet demand and were now a 3 shift site. However that is now. My interest is the future of Luton site and what plans they have for it.
Conservatives and [Boris] Johnson supporters are less ecstatic. Some seem to believe that Southgate is becoming a tool of deep Woke — with one Tory strategist telling me that the England manager’s patriotism essay was “suspiciously well-written”. https://www.ft.com/content/f177cfd0-24b8-49ba-bdd8-99b975828d23
Calum Semple, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) says the lifting of coronavirus restrictions is a "calculated risk".
The professor of child health and outbreak medicine at the University of Liverpool tells Times Radio: "I wouldn't say this is a gamble, it's more of a calculated risk."
"I should point out, looking at the data last night, 88% of people in hospital, from what I could see, had not been vaccinated or had had the vaccine but hadn't had the chance to develop immunity, so that's within 28 days of the vaccine.
"There's now an incredibly strong signal that the vaccination is working and protecting the vast majority of people."
From the BBC live feed
88% of people in hospital are currently from the unvaccinated or partially vaccinated cohort which shrinks every day. This is the stat we've all been waiting for and once again justifies reopening. The vaccine is basically freely available to anyone who wants it. What we're seeing is the virus burning through the unvaccinated population. There was never a scenario where we could stay locked down because people have refused the vaccine.
BUT BUT the idiot at the Times has stuck his ruler through the data and said if this continues when we hit 200k cases we will have 4000+ a day going into hospital....
Someone was suggesting 1 million a day on here but I cannot remember who
That will happen in about a month at current rates of growth, and at current rates of hospitalisation the January peak of hospital admissions will be exceeded around that time.
But you've all been hypnotised into thinking numbers don't matter any more, and who am I to spoil the party? Good luck.
How are we going to get to that number? At current rates, it seems under 10% of infections are in the vaccinated. Infections in children aren't worth worrying about, the hospitalisation rates are so low.
There are only about 7 millon adults who haven't had a first dose now, which gives some idea of the size of the pool of avalible people to infect. About 20% will have infection aquired immunity, so it's more like 5.5 millon who are actually likely to catch it.
Current infection rates are running at about 200k/week, so it's a bit over two doublings to 1 millon a week, say a ten day doubling cycle. If we actually hit the 1 millon a week mark, nearly half of those 5.5 millon people will have caught it on the way there. In practice, the R number will come crashing down as the disease finds it harder and harder to find people to infect. You can see this happening area by area in real time if you look at the MSOA infection rate maps - the areas where delta hit first ramped to a peak, and are now drifitng back down. The ramp slope was briefly spectacular, but has then flatterned out or even started trending down.
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
It was going to 30k of course, and when Farage said 300k he was a total clown.
The people in favour of mass immigration always grossly underestimate the amount of immigrants, whether out of deceit or ignorance. When they are inevitably shown to be wrong, the normal move is to say ‘but look at all the good they’ve done for the economy”
Or call the people who were right ‘racists’
Who remembers Remain’s ‘EURacists’?
Being concerned about immigration and wanting it reduced is no proof of racism. Absolutely not.
However, take a random sample of people for whom the above is not only a concern but just about their BIGGEST concern in politics, and you will find in that sample a degree of racism that's well above the norm.
I see what you are saying but, given immigration was one of the highest ranking concerns of the public in the last decade, it can’t be true that those who were concerned were much more racist than the norm, because they WERE the norm
Coincides with when the end of the vaccine programme is expected for all over 18s. I think Javid is being smart to avoid claims of intergenerational unfairness that younger people who were deprioritised for vaccines for the good of the country are now being treated unfairly with isolation orders as many haven't had their chance to be double jabbed.
Hmm, but it's not very rational in epidemiological terms, is it? About the only thing that can be said in favour of such an irrational policy is that it might encourage higher vaccine take-up.
It wouldn't exactly be fair if they have no opportunity to get vaccinated. Either no quarantine, or vaccination.
No, this argument is wrong, wrong, wrong. There is nothing at all unfair about objectively-justified differential policy. We really do need to get away from this childishness; in this case, damaging the economy simply because we're unwilling to take on the childishness.
It's unlikely to make any real difference. Most people I know are fully intending to uninstall the app on the 19th, I know I am. My wife has already done so after being pinged despite not being in the country at the time when it said she had come in contact with someone and had gone through the amber list rigmarole of PCR testing on entry and arrival etc...
I think it's actually a politically savvy move from Javid knowing that it makes no difference economically. For months the Tories have been painted as favouring the old (fairly) and finally they have a policy which fucks the old farts off a bit for fairness to the young who have had their lives ruined for 18 months to protect the old. I fully expect that the end of isolation for contacts will be pitched as a fairness issue as well with the 4 week delay intended to give under 40s time to get double jabbed and a huge expansion of walk-in facilities.
It still startles me to hear of people having actually downloaded the app in the first place. I know lots did but I don’t understand why?
I went to Centerparcs a few weeks back and you had to download it for that, in theory, so I did. I downloaded it as soon as I left. I don't think it worked with my phone anyway and I wasn't motivated to find out why not.
It seems to be an all downside/no upside thing to have. I don't know why you would have it unless you really had to.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 27m Some people telling me Labour’s policy is to simply prevent all “avoidable” deaths. But then that requires a total and immediate lockdown. Given every loosening potentially increases transmission, infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths.
That's the point I keep making. Labour's position is illogical. Current measures aren't stopping Delta, so if you want to stop Delta you need to tighten not loosen measures.
It is logical. It's positioning Labour to be able to blame Johnson and his government for all the Covid deaths and serious illness arising post July 19th from the 3rd wave.
Johnson's move to fully reopen is political. So is Starmer's response. This is how things will be from now on. Normal politics is back. I think it will benefit Labour but we'll see.
Moron and Lineker...its all very Lawerence Fox...they constantly looking for outrage / validation on the twitters.
I am coming to the conclusion it is the new mid life crisis. Forget the penis extension sports car and the new younger girlfriend, it is now all about the retweets....
It still startles me to hear of people having actually downloaded the app in the first place. I know lots did but I don’t understand why?
I wouldn't have thought it would be very hard to understand that we wanted to do our bit to help reduce the spread of a very nasty, often fatal, disease.
Conservatives and [Boris] Johnson supporters are less ecstatic. Some seem to believe that Southgate is becoming a tool of deep Woke — with one Tory strategist telling me that the England manager’s patriotism essay was “suspiciously well-written”. https://www.ft.com/content/f177cfd0-24b8-49ba-bdd8-99b975828d23
What the heck is "deep Woke"?
And what's the underlying assumption in "suspiciously well-written"? That a footballer is too thick to write good English?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 27m Some people telling me Labour’s policy is to simply prevent all “avoidable” deaths. But then that requires a total and immediate lockdown. Given every loosening potentially increases transmission, infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths.
That's the point I keep making. Labour's position is illogical. Current measures aren't stopping Delta, so if you want to stop Delta you need to tighten not loosen measures.
It is logical. It's positioning Labour to be able to blame Johnson and his government for all the Covid deaths and serious illness arising post July 19th from the 3rd wave.
Johnson's move to fully reopen is political. So is Starmer's response. This is how things will be from now on. Normal politics is back. I think it will benefit Labour but we'll see.
I am amazed that Labour haven't managed to really win the blame game on Indian variant already. I actually don't know how they haven't. I was fully expecting the Tories to be well down in the polls, and yet they are perhaps down 1% (and that is after Hancock half hour rather than Indian variant spread).
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 27m Some people telling me Labour’s policy is to simply prevent all “avoidable” deaths. But then that requires a total and immediate lockdown. Given every loosening potentially increases transmission, infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths.
That's the point I keep making. Labour's position is illogical. Current measures aren't stopping Delta, so if you want to stop Delta you need to tighten not loosen measures.
It is logical. It's positioning Labour to be able to blame Johnson and his government for all the Covid deaths and serious illness arising post July 19th from the 3rd wave.
Johnson's move to fully reopen is political. So is Starmer's response. This is how things will be from now on. Normal politics is back. I think it will benefit Labour but we'll see.
Why is the move to fully open political? It was meant to happen last month, but we didn’t know how bad the infection/death ratio of the latest variant was going to be - now we know. Sir Keir’s just trying to draw a dividing line, but it’s not a free hit; if all goes well, he is the grinch that tried to steal summer and he wont be allowed to forget it
Conservatives and [Boris] Johnson supporters are less ecstatic. Some seem to believe that Southgate is becoming a tool of deep Woke — with one Tory strategist telling me that the England manager’s patriotism essay was “suspiciously well-written”. https://www.ft.com/content/f177cfd0-24b8-49ba-bdd8-99b975828d23
What the heck is "deep Woke"?
Presumably the opposite of deep Sleep. Southgate has been hijacked by Woke communists, presumably led by Susan Michie, and they have made him write an anodyne article about patriotism and football that, if you read it, it would be pretty hard to object to.
At the risk of distracting from the discourse on the EU, I've cunningly realised, re-reading Polybius, that there's not a perfect overlap between my Penguin and Oxford editions, so I'm reading both, filling in the gaps each one misses.
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that prevent pubs opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
For context, that number that have applied is 5% of the population of Romania.
Or was 5%.
Romania's population decline is little short of catastrophic for the country. Like the Irish emigration centuries ago. Since 1990 their population has fallen by a sixth by 2019 and the fall has only been accelerating in recent years. Since its primarily the healthy, young people who can work who are emigrating, this is awful for their demographics.
I'm not sure what can be done about it to help them, but we are not helping their country by one-way draining so many of their people of working age.
On topic, who gives a shiny shit? Boris got an 80 seat majority. 19 months on, he still has an 80 seat majority. He is likely to have a majority close to 80 for the rest of his term, 2023/24.
"Yes, it's a shitshow, but fuckit, we won!"
And you wonder why Brexiteers are not winning hearts and minds...
Do you ever wonder why you lost the Referendum?
Exhibit A - this level of supercilious sneering....
Conservatives and [Boris] Johnson supporters are less ecstatic. Some seem to believe that Southgate is becoming a tool of deep Woke — with one Tory strategist telling me that the England manager’s patriotism essay was “suspiciously well-written”. https://www.ft.com/content/f177cfd0-24b8-49ba-bdd8-99b975828d23
What the heck is "deep Woke"?
And what's the underlying assumption in "suspiciously well-written"? That a footballer is too thick to write good English?
Probably. Didn't Southgate want to be a journalist if he didn't make it at football?
Interesting that this is inconsistent with what is on the UK government's own website.
The official gov.uk site is not very clear, it can be read multiple ways without proper breaking down into sections. It is also updated post 30 June 2021 when the rules changed and it became a lot harder to apply for relatives living overseas into settled status applications.
It was a bit weird. Sue Barker says Raducanu will give an interview later today, so perhaps that will shed more light on it. It's hard to know what it's like to appear on a show court for the first time, but it was a free hit really and I thought she was doing fine.
Well, yes, pro-Remain MPs were wrong to have opposed TMay’s deal in 2019. Doesn't need hindsight, that was completely clear at the time. What the hell were they thinking? Didn't the fact that they were going through the lobbies with Mark Francois, John Redwood, Steve Baker etc - not to mention John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn - not give them a clue?
The long term Remain epic fail is over generations. If you want to support a wholly novel integrationist policy uniting disparate peoples 500,000,000 strong, you have to do it either by democracy and consultation (ie liberal democracy) or by authoritarianism (like China).
Doing it by stealth, diversionary tactics, factual inexactitude and manipulation with a bit of bullying can't work reliably.
So Remain failed from 1972 to 2015, because it failed to win hearts and minds, and failed to set a decent and truthful vision before a properly sceptical public. The Remain campaign was worse; and the Remain tactics post referendum deserve their own courses in management, business studies, politics and history degrees - "How to turn a setback into a catastrophe."
We come, I think, from opposite sides of the Brexit debate - you voted leave? But I tend to agree with everything you write on it.
Successive governments, since Thatcher (and even hers in its later times) took the line that the EU was a shitshow, but that the positives just about outweighed the negatives. Even Blair, who was the most positive in my lifetime, I think, preferred not to talk about it. There was never, in my lifetime, a real positive case made for being in.
Completely agree. I am a leaver, but was perfectly persuadable of the alternative. To be persuaded required lots of real answers. But one alone was critical: What is the destination in terms of sovereignty and statehood? That had to be a clear Yes or No.
Others were How does its democracy work, and is it one? Is it a protectionist rich club? How does the voter change it? Why does it impoverish poor third world farmers? How can it function with some in NATO and some neutral? How does it defend itself?
Once the Euro was established a single state was the unambiguous destination, but the EU and UK was in a spiral of silence and denial about the meaning of the obvious. And people made fun of those who pointed out the obvious. At that point a good cause was a lost cause.
I actually don't think a single state was a realistic end point with the membership in 2016 - I know there were many eurocrats, some MEPs etc in favour, but many other nations apart from Britain would have been completely unwilling, forever (Sweden, for sure - I lived there for a while - probably Denmark, Netherlands maybe, some of the Eastern European countries who had recent history being part of the USSR or in it's sphere of influence).
But it was (and is) a legitimate question that should be answered. What is the end state?
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Moron and Lineker...its all very Lawerence Fox...they constantly looking for outrage / validation on the twitters.
I am coming to the conclusion it is the new mid life crisis. Forget the penis extension sports car and the new younger girlfriend, it is now all about the retweets....
6m followers each. Towering giants of social media in the UK. Fox might be one day but at present he isn't.
Calum Semple, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) says the lifting of coronavirus restrictions is a "calculated risk".
The professor of child health and outbreak medicine at the University of Liverpool tells Times Radio: "I wouldn't say this is a gamble, it's more of a calculated risk."
"I should point out, looking at the data last night, 88% of people in hospital, from what I could see, had not been vaccinated or had had the vaccine but hadn't had the chance to develop immunity, so that's within 28 days of the vaccine.
"There's now an incredibly strong signal that the vaccination is working and protecting the vast majority of people."
From the BBC live feed
88% of people in hospital are currently from the unvaccinated or partially vaccinated cohort which shrinks every day. This is the stat we've all been waiting for and once again justifies reopening. The vaccine is basically freely available to anyone who wants it. What we're seeing is the virus burning through the unvaccinated population. There was never a scenario where we could stay locked down because people have refused the vaccine.
BUT BUT the idiot at the Times has stuck his ruler through the data and said if this continues when we hit 200k cases we will have 4000+ a day going into hospital....
Someone was suggesting 1 million a day on here but I cannot remember who
That will happen in about a month at current rates of growth, and at current rates of hospitalisation the January peak of hospital admissions will be exceeded around that time.
But you've all been hypnotised into thinking numbers don't matter any more, and who am I to spoil the party? Good luck.
How are we going to get to that number? At current rates, it seems under 10% of infections are in the vaccinated. Infections in children aren't worth worrying about, the hospitalisation rates are so low.
There are only about 7 millon adults who haven't had a first dose now, which gives some idea of the size of the pool of avalible people to infect. About 20% will have infection aquired immunity, so it's more like 5.5 millon who are actually likely to catch it.
Current infection rates are running at about 200k/week, so it's a bit over two doublings to 1 millon a week, say a ten day doubling cycle. If we actually hit the 1 millon a week mark, nearly half of those 5.5 millon people will have caught it on the way there. In practice, the R number will come crashing down as the disease finds it harder and harder to find people to infect. You can see this happening area by area in real time if you look at the MSOA infection rate maps - the areas where delta hit first ramped to a peak, and are now drifitng back down. The ramp slope was briefly spectacular, but has then flatterned out or even started trending down.
I think the number likely to catch it is a fair but higher because vaccines look like they give around 80-90% protection from symptomatic infection meaning that around 10m fully vaccinated adults are susceptible to catching it and getting symptoms. From what we know there is a 96% reduction in hospitalisation among the double jabbed so that reduces the hospitalisation risk from around 7% for delta across the population to about 0.3% in the double jabbed meaning there is a maximum risk of around 130-150k going to hospital from the doubly vaccinated cohort were literally everyone in the nation to get it, which is an unlikely scenario as we'd hit herd immunity well before then. Finally the vaccine reduces risk of death by close to 100%, it's something like 99.5% for delta so from an IFR of 1% we're looking at an IFR or 0.005%, so again if all double jabbed people got the virus we'd be looking at under 3k deaths from them in total. Yes, that's just 3,000 people double vaccinated people dying of this and those will almost certainly all come from the old and unhealthy.
This is also without accounting for reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. If fewer people can spread it that means the virus simply has less opportunity to find new hosts so all of these numbers could be significantly smaller in real life.
We got a glimpse of it this morning when a SAGE member confirmed that only 12% of hospital patients for COVID are double jabbed.
Well, yes, pro-Remain MPs were wrong to have opposed TMay’s deal in 2019. Doesn't need hindsight, that was completely clear at the time. What the hell were they thinking? Didn't the fact that they were going through the lobbies with Mark Francois, John Redwood, Steve Baker etc - not to mention John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn - not give them a clue?
The long term Remain epic fail is over generations. If you want to support a wholly novel integrationist policy uniting disparate peoples 500,000,000 strong, you have to do it either by democracy and consultation (ie liberal democracy) or by authoritarianism (like China).
Doing it by stealth, diversionary tactics, factual inexactitude and manipulation with a bit of bullying can't work reliably.
So Remain failed from 1972 to 2015, because it failed to win hearts and minds, and failed to set a decent and truthful vision before a properly sceptical public. The Remain campaign was worse; and the Remain tactics post referendum deserve their own courses in management, business studies, politics and history degrees - "How to turn a setback into a catastrophe."
We come, I think, from opposite sides of the Brexit debate - you voted leave? But I tend to agree with everything you write on it.
Successive governments, since Thatcher (and even hers in its later times) took the line that the EU was a shitshow, but that the positives just about outweighed the negatives. Even Blair, who was the most positive in my lifetime, I think, preferred not to talk about it. There was never, in my lifetime, a real positive case made for being in.
Completely agree. I am a leaver, but was perfectly persuadable of the alternative. To be persuaded required lots of real answers. But one alone was critical: What is the destination in terms of sovereignty and statehood? That had to be a clear Yes or No.
Others were How does its democracy work, and is it one? Is it a protectionist rich club? How does the voter change it? Why does it impoverish poor third world farmers? How can it function with some in NATO and some neutral? How does it defend itself?
Once the Euro was established a single state was the unambiguous destination, but the EU and UK was in a spiral of silence and denial about the meaning of the obvious. And people made fun of those who pointed out the obvious. At that point a good cause was a lost cause.
I actually don't think a single state was a realistic end point with the membership in 2016 - I know there were many eurocrats, some MEPs etc in favour, but many other nations apart from Britain would have been completely unwilling, forever (Sweden, for sure - I lived there for a while - probably Denmark, Netherlands maybe, some of the Eastern European countries who had recent history being part of the USSR or in it's sphere of influence).
But it was (and is) a legitimate question that should be answered. What is the end state?
An EU superpower to challenge the US and China is of course the ultimate aim, it has long since ceased to be just a trading block like the Common Market we originally joined.
Having now agreed a trade deal with the EU our relationship with Europe is now actually not too far from the Common Market we originally joined, we just did not want to be part of the Federal EU Superstate (albeit some staunch EU supporters like Heseltine and Heath and Jenkins post WW2 and the end of the British Empire saw the EEC/EU as a replacement for Empire for us but they are now either dead or very old).
Scottish case numbers - fingers crossed - do look like they are dropping rapidly now that Scotland aren't in the football tournament. With the tournament ending one way or another on Sunday, schools in England soon closing for the summer, and further people receiving their second doses - is there a possibility that we might see case numbers decline in August?
Mike is quite right, although you'll never convince the headbangers on the Far Right.
Brexit is not going well: even the Telegraph is admitting as much. It's obvious to most of the rest of us that Theresa May secured a really workable deal which would have preserved everything that was best in our economic interests and kept the union intact.
This current Brexit deal is bordering on disastrous and the word 'border' is apt.
It was a bit weird. Sue Barker says Raducanu will give an interview later today, so perhaps that will shed more light on it. It's hard to know what it's like to appear on a show court for the first time, but it was a free hit really and I thought she was doing fine.
When I say the clips again on the News at 10 it way more obvious how sickly white Emma's face was at the end, something that I hadn't picked when watching the match.
At the risk of distracting from the discourse on the EU, I've cunningly realised, re-reading Polybius, that there's not a perfect overlap between my Penguin and Oxford editions, so I'm reading both, filling in the gaps each one misses.
Yes, I thought you'd all be excited by that.
Quite. There are important things in life. Like scholarship. And knowing where the pitfalls lie. I'm not being facetious. I recently discovered that the folks who scanned an old scientific journal had left out the substantial errata and addenda pages of the relevant volume. Happily they did something about it - but it would have been disastrous for my work to have missed i t.
Seriously: they simply hadn't bothered with the stuff at the front and end which ddidn't fit into their mental picture of volume = n papers.
Edit: and it was the publisher. Not some mickey mouse third party.
On topic, who gives a shiny shit? Boris got an 80 seat majority. 19 months on, he still has an 80 seat majority. He is likely to have a majority close to 80 for the rest of his term, 2023/24.
Therein lies the problem - you win a majority and can then do whatever you like but it comes from our unrepresentative electoral system rather than from the voters. It's a manufactured majority - in any other European country it wouldn't have happened.
On the longer term EU issue there has never ever been a decisive majority for leaving in the way there was for joining. Whilst rejoining is clearly not an option in the short term the political base for it is already strong.
The Tories own Brexit lock, stock and barrel and while that may have given them a short term advantage let's see how it plays out in the long run. Even at this early stage a plurality of voters believe that Brexit was wrong and many won't be voting Tory again in a hurry. They had better hope that Brexit delivers enough to keep their new best friends in places like Hartlepool on board.
Europeans love the EU project so much that only 5.6m of them want settled status in Brexit Britain.
That's a total non-sequitur, but I guess we should be used to that by now.
The remainer's attitude is turning into the longest sulk in history.
Britain's democracy is far from perfect, but its good enough that if the electorate really wanted brexit stopped, it would have been.
Similarly, we are going back to freedom because that is what people want. Its not what the commentariat want. Or the opposition. But then these days their wishes and those of much of the electorate rarely coincide.
With the risk of getting into one of those arguments that we have all had over and over again for the last x years, what freedom have we actually gone back to? I have gained none. Personally all I have had is extra paperwork, my freedom to travel in Europe curtailed (which is currently a real headache) and a pensions campaign I am involved with potentially scuppered by the changes regarding the European Court.
Scottish case numbers - fingers crossed - do look like they are dropping rapidly now that Scotland aren't in the football tournament. With the tournament ending one way or another on Sunday, schools in England soon closing for the summer, and further people receiving their second doses - is there a possibility that we might see case numbers decline in August?
Calum Semple, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) says the lifting of coronavirus restrictions is a "calculated risk".
The professor of child health and outbreak medicine at the University of Liverpool tells Times Radio: "I wouldn't say this is a gamble, it's more of a calculated risk."
"I should point out, looking at the data last night, 88% of people in hospital, from what I could see, had not been vaccinated or had had the vaccine but hadn't had the chance to develop immunity, so that's within 28 days of the vaccine.
"There's now an incredibly strong signal that the vaccination is working and protecting the vast majority of people."
From the BBC live feed
88% of people in hospital are currently from the unvaccinated or partially vaccinated cohort which shrinks every day. This is the stat we've all been waiting for and once again justifies reopening. The vaccine is basically freely available to anyone who wants it. What we're seeing is the virus burning through the unvaccinated population. There was never a scenario where we could stay locked down because people have refused the vaccine.
BUT BUT the idiot at the Times has stuck his ruler through the data and said if this continues when we hit 200k cases we will have 4000+ a day going into hospital....
Someone was suggesting 1 million a day on here but I cannot remember who
That will happen in about a month at current rates of growth, and at current rates of hospitalisation the January peak of hospital admissions will be exceeded around that time.
But you've all been hypnotised into thinking numbers don't matter any more, and who am I to spoil the party? Good luck.
How are we going to get to that number? At current rates, it seems under 10% of infections are in the vaccinated. Infections in children aren't worth worrying about, the hospitalisation rates are so low.
There are only about 7 millon adults who haven't had a first dose now, which gives some idea of the size of the pool of avalible people to infect. About 20% will have infection aquired immunity, so it's more like 5.5 millon who are actually likely to catch it.
Current infection rates are running at about 200k/week, so it's a bit over two doublings to 1 millon a week, say a ten day doubling cycle. If we actually hit the 1 millon a week mark, nearly half of those 5.5 millon people will have caught it on the way there. In practice, the R number will come crashing down as the disease finds it harder and harder to find people to infect. You can see this happening area by area in real time if you look at the MSOA infection rate maps - the areas where delta hit first ramped to a peak, and are now drifitng back down. The ramp slope was briefly spectacular, but has then flatterned out or even started trending down.
I think the number likely to catch it is a fair but higher because vaccines look like they give around 80-90% protection from symptomatic infection meaning that around 10m fully vaccinated adults are susceptible to catching it and getting symptoms. From what we know there is a 96% reduction in hospitalisation among the double jabbed so that reduces the hospitalisation risk from around 7% for delta across the population to about 0.3% in the double jabbed meaning there is a maximum risk of around 130-150k going to hospital from the doubly vaccinated cohort were literally everyone in the nation to get it, which is an unlikely scenario as we'd hit herd immunity well before then. Finally the vaccine reduces risk of death by close to 100%, it's something like 99.5% for delta so from an IFR of 1% we're looking at an IFR or 0.005%, so again if all double jabbed people got the virus we'd be looking at under 3k deaths from them in total. Yes, that's just 3,000 people double vaccinated people dying of this and those will almost certainly all come from the old and unhealthy.
This is also without accounting for reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. If fewer people can spread it that means the virus simply has less opportunity to find new hosts so all of these numbers could be significantly smaller in real life.
We got a glimpse of it this morning when a SAGE member confirmed that only 12% of hospital patients for COVID are double jabbed.
No no no, you must be wrong because the genius Times journalist "has done the math"....4000 a day being hospitalized upcoming shortly....bangs head against desk....
Now I know we might have some more Romanians than we thought in the UK, but not sure we have many millions of them all unvaccinated...
On topic, who gives a shiny shit? Boris got an 80 seat majority. 19 months on, he still has an 80 seat majority. He is likely to have a majority close to 80 for the rest of his term, 2023/24.
Therein lies the problem - you win a majority and can then do whatever you like but it comes from our unrepresentative electoral system rather than from the voters. It's a manufactured majority - in any other European country it wouldn't have happened.
On the longer term EU issue there has never ever been a decisive majority for leaving in the way there was for joining. Whilst rejoining is clearly not an option in the short term the political base for it is already strong.
The Tories own Brexit lock, stock and barrel and while that may have given them a short term advantage let's see how it plays out in the long run. Even at this early stage a plurality of voters believe that Brexit was wrong and many won't be voting Tory again in a hurry. They had better hope that Brexit delivers enough to keep their new best friends in places like Hartlepool on board.
Europeans love the EU project so much that only 5.6m of them want settled status in Brexit Britain.
That's a total non-sequitur, but I guess we should be used to that by now.
The remainer's attitude is turning into the longest sulk in history.
Britain's democracy is far from perfect, but its good enough that if the electorate really wanted brexit stopped, it would have been.
Similarly, we are going back to freedom because that is what people want. Its not what the commentariat want. Or the opposition. But then these days their wishes and those of much of the electorate rarely coincide.
With the risk of getting into one of those arguments that we have all had over and over again for the last x years, what freedom have we actually gone back to? I have gained none. Personally all I have had is extra paperwork, my freedom to travel in Europe curtailed (which is currently a real headache) and a pensions campaign I am involved with potentially scuppered by the changes regarding the European Court.
The freedom to elect MPs who set or revoke any laws you like or dislike.
When I say the clips again on the News at 10 it way more obvious how sickly white Emma's face was at the end, something that I hadn't picked when watching the match.
So Labour's talking point objections to boris opening up seems to be 3 fold.
Not enough support for better ventilation...fine, but how much longer would we have to delay opening up before many more buildings have better ventilation? Next year?
More payments for isolation....well given only 20% actually complete isolation properly, while for some it is about money, hosing more money at this, won't magically get that figure really really high as for many it is about attitude...so that won't solve covid spread either.
Masks on public transport...i think this is fair enough criticism, but if you are going to be allowing pubs, gyms, restaurants etc, dropping social distance limits and gathering numbers (most spread is via friend / family interactions), how much difference does this make to stop spread? Are Labour saying we have to keep all these other restrictions?
And Ashworth rather dishonestly has moved goalposts talking about only 50% of PEOPLE vaccinated.
So how much longer does Labour think we need to carry on with current restrictions? To get through vaccinating kids that several more months, then what about booster shots, do we have to wait for those to be done? For better ventilation, that's months, or more like years....
The masks on public transport one comes from the fact you have 200 people say from 200 different offices heading to 200 different homes.
If it only takes 5 minutes to catch covid, that's an awful lot of possible connections where it could be spread.
As I commented on this last night, public transport is about the last place that masks should be removed from...
Certainly I will keep wearing a mask until double vaccinated and probably after on public transport anyway, though for the double vaccinated it should be voluntary in my view
I had my 2nd jab in March and I will continue to wear masks going to and from work on the bus. I am happy to volunteer to do so.
People seem to forget that the mask is to protect others, not to protect yourself.
Vaccination only provides *some*protection against Delta infection (it's main effect seems to be to reduce severity), so you should still wear your mask to protect others even after double jabbage.
Plus, who wants to spend 10 days off work if you get a mild or asymptomatic infection having been double jabbed?
"some"....Pfizer is 80% effective....AZN 60% (and actually it is probably higher as the studies have used 3 week / 2 week cut offs, which a) means some in the data caught it within those periods and when we know AZN takes longer to build max immunity)...
That's a lot higher than "some". So no their main effect is not reduced severity. Its very good protection AND reduced severity.
Flu shots are never this effective.
I thought the 80% effectiveness figure was against symptoms, not infection.
How are vaccine effectiveness figures calculated? Is there a control sample of unvaccinated people, with weightings applied for lifestyle?
Given you are infected (but double jabbed), effectiveness against transmission (low viral load) is x%. If x% is 50%, then effectiveness against transmission of Delta is 1- (1-0.64)x(1-0.5) i,e, 82%. If x is 80% then effectiveness is 93%. But I think that x is not yet known.
Thanks for this.
That Politico article may be confusing infections with symptomatic cases.
I'm trying to get a handle on whether or not an asymptomatic infection - which before widespread frequent testing would usually have passed unnoticed and unrecorded - can still give rise to long Covid.
Many people are feeling a lot of psychological wear. How much of this may be due to the long-term effects of an asymptomatic SARSCoV2 infection that didn't register as a "case", that they didn't even notice?
There is no such thing as a zero Covid strategy There is no such thing as a zero Covid strategy There is no such thing as a zero Covid strategy There is no such thing as a zero Covid strategy There is no such thing as a zero Covid strategy
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 27m Some people telling me Labour’s policy is to simply prevent all “avoidable” deaths. But then that requires a total and immediate lockdown. Given every loosening potentially increases transmission, infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths.
Hodges is wrong. The only way to avoid all ‘avoidable deaths’ is to cease all reproduction, and let Homo sapiens go naturally extinct. = no more ‘avoidable’ deaths, at all.
So that’s Labour’s policy. Vote for an end to sex and the death of the human race!
Funnily enough, on the Green, Puritan, transy, genderfluid, bend-the-knee. commie-SAGE fringe of Labour, there are probably quite a few activists who want exactly that.
Scottish case numbers - fingers crossed - do look like they are dropping rapidly now that Scotland aren't in the football tournament. With the tournament ending one way or another on Sunday, schools in England soon closing for the summer, and further people receiving their second doses - is there a possibility that we might see case numbers decline in August?
Also schools have been closed for 10 days now.
I think the schools point is a good one.
One other thing to note is how quickly the cases dropped off in India. Maybe this is what the Delta variant does.
On topic, who gives a shiny shit? Boris got an 80 seat majority. 19 months on, he still has an 80 seat majority. He is likely to have a majority close to 80 for the rest of his term, 2023/24.
Therein lies the problem - you win a majority and can then do whatever you like but it comes from our unrepresentative electoral system rather than from the voters. It's a manufactured majority - in any other European country it wouldn't have happened.
On the longer term EU issue there has never ever been a decisive majority for leaving in the way there was for joining. Whilst rejoining is clearly not an option in the short term the political base for it is already strong.
The Tories own Brexit lock, stock and barrel and while that may have given them a short term advantage let's see how it plays out in the long run. Even at this early stage a plurality of voters believe that Brexit was wrong and many won't be voting Tory again in a hurry. They had better hope that Brexit delivers enough to keep their new best friends in places like Hartlepool on board.
Europeans love the EU project so much that only 5.6m of them want settled status in Brexit Britain.
That's a total non-sequitur, but I guess we should be used to that by now.
The remainer's attitude is turning into the longest sulk in history.
Britain's democracy is far from perfect, but its good enough that if the electorate really wanted brexit stopped, it would have been.
Similarly, we are going back to freedom because that is what people want. Its not what the commentariat want. Or the opposition. But then these days their wishes and those of much of the electorate rarely coincide.
With the risk of getting into one of those arguments that we have all had over and over again for the last x years, what freedom have we actually gone back to? I have gained none. Personally all I have had is extra paperwork, my freedom to travel in Europe curtailed (which is currently a real headache) and a pensions campaign I am involved with potentially scuppered by the changes regarding the European Court.
Freedom to set our own laws, for one.
I'm currently wading through the proposed changes to insurance company capital regulation, that is only possible because we're now out of the EU and hence have some freedom to diverge.
Also I saw a news article the other day about a private member's bill on overturning the EU's ruling on requiring vehicles kept off road to have third party insurance. The bill has Government support and is expected to pass.
That's just my industry, and it's only been six months, and there's a pandemic on which is severely draining available Parliamentary time.
For context, that number that have applied is 5% of the population of Romania.
Or was 5%.
Romania's population decline is little short of catastrophic for the country. Like the Irish emigration centuries ago. Since 1990 their population has fallen by a sixth by 2019 and the fall has only been accelerating in recent years. Since its primarily the healthy, young people who can work who are emigrating, this is awful for their demographics.
I'm not sure what can be done about it to help them, but we are not helping their country by one-way draining so many of their people of working age.
Yes, Romania has been utterly hollowed out by emigration.
There will be some positives in remittances from those living abroad, and they are looking to non-EU Ukraine for tradesmen, but losing a sixth of your population in a couple of decades leaves a huge burden on the state.
Mr. Carnyx, a missed bit, end of chapter 1, is dealing with the rebellion of mercenaries, which is quite an engaging bit.
It's largely caused by communications failures and speaking many languages, which has certain echoes in the modern world in which sometimes people speak English but their usage and understanding of vocabulary is so utterly divergent that it causes confusion rather than clarity.
Is it just me, or spelling it "Rumanian" gives it a 1908, Times of London feel?
Did the Times not use "Roumania"? Adoption of the spelling "Romania" as standard in the 1970s allegedly had something to do with the dictator's Caesarism.
[Note to self: find time to check out what kind of insane stuff Ceausescu was into.]
Internally they seem to have been using the spelling "România" ever since they finally opted for Latin characters over Cyrillic in the mid-19th century. You are correct that "Roumania" or "Rumania" were the preferred spellings in English until some time post WWII, and many other European and other languages still use "ou" or "u" spellings.
For context, that number that have applied is 5% of the population of Romania.
Or was 5%.
Romania's population decline is little short of catastrophic for the country. Like the Irish emigration centuries ago. Since 1990 their population has fallen by a sixth by 2019 and the fall has only been accelerating in recent years. Since its primarily the healthy, young people who can work who are emigrating, this is awful for their demographics.
I'm not sure what can be done about it to help them, but we are not helping their country by one-way draining so many of their people of working age.
Yes, Romania has been utterly hollowed out by emigration.
There will be some positives in remittances from those living abroad, and they are looking to non-EU Ukraine for tradesmen, but losing a sixth of your population in a couple of decades leaves a huge burden on the state.
Haven't the likes of Romanian and some other Eastern block countries hard hit by mass emigration also been doing deals to bring in North Korean slave labour?
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Licencing restrictions, including the issuances and conditions of licences, are managed by local authorities.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
[snip] I'm trying to get a handle on whether or not an asymptomatic infection - which before widespread frequent testing would usually have passed unnoticed and unrecorded - can still give rise to long Covid.
Many people are feeling a lot of psychological wear. How much of this may be due to the long-term effects of an asymptomatic SARSCoV2 infection that didn't register as a "case", that they didn't even notice?
That's a very interesting question (in the first sentence I've quoted there). I don't think I've seen anything which attempts to answer it.
For context, that number that have applied is 5% of the population of Romania.
Or was 5%.
Romania's population decline is little short of catastrophic for the country. Like the Irish emigration centuries ago. Since 1990 their population has fallen by a sixth by 2019 and the fall has only been accelerating in recent years. Since its primarily the healthy, young people who can work who are emigrating, this is awful for their demographics.
I'm not sure what can be done about it to help them, but we are not helping their country by one-way draining so many of their people of working age.
Yes, Romania has been utterly hollowed out by emigration.
There will be some positives in remittances from those living abroad, and they are looking to non-EU Ukraine for tradesmen, but losing a sixth of your population in a couple of decades leaves a huge burden on the state.
And its a sixth based on official emigration figures. Given that official figures showed they were down only 300k people moving to the UK and close to a million have, their emigration may be a fifth or more of their populace. Its quite sad, other countries haven't been so hollowed out as they have.
Scottish case numbers - fingers crossed - do look like they are dropping rapidly now that Scotland aren't in the football tournament. With the tournament ending one way or another on Sunday, schools in England soon closing for the summer, and further people receiving their second doses - is there a possibility that we might see case numbers decline in August?
Also schools have been closed for 10 days now.
I think the schools point is a good one.
One other thing to note is how quickly the cases dropped off in India. Maybe this is what the Delta variant does.
As I mentioned earlier - all the "unconstrained" COVID epidemics dropped back, long before everyone catches it.
The question is why. RCS says voluntary lockdown - everyone gets scared and hides. Yet, afterwards, COVID doesn't return as people go back to normal(ish).
But of course the nutjobs will tell you hers wasn't Brexit.
They have wrecked this country for at least a generation. Arseholes.
If Mrs May’s deal wasn’t Brexit, then all those opposed to Brexit should have voted for it.
I "liked" this, and then I "unliked", because I remembered that of course the problem with May's deal was that those opposed to Brexit thought it was Brexit while those in favour of it thought it wasn't. Which in retrospect (hell, even at the time) means it was probably the perfect compromise and everyone should have just agreed to vote for it. Instead, no-one did.
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Licencing restrictions, including the issuances and conditions of licences, are managed by local authorities.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
The Licensing Act 2003 sets the law on how local authorities and pubs operate, the local authorities don't make their own law up even if they manage how it is operated.
If left to their own devices then yes pubs could apply to their local authority to vary the terms of their licence however the deadline to make such an application in time for Sunday has already lapsed so it couldn't be made in time by law.
So only a relaxation of the law covers all pubs. Yes its redundant for those who already have a licence, but for those who don't have a licence going past 11 it is the law that is being relaxed.
By the government relaxing the law nationwide it removes any responsibility for pubs to apply to the council to vary the licence - an application its in fact too late to make anyway.
For context, that number that have applied is 5% of the population of Romania.
Or was 5%.
Romania's population decline is little short of catastrophic for the country. Like the Irish emigration centuries ago. Since 1990 their population has fallen by a sixth by 2019 and the fall has only been accelerating in recent years. Since its primarily the healthy, young people who can work who are emigrating, this is awful for their demographics.
I'm not sure what can be done about it to help them, but we are not helping their country by one-way draining so many of their people of working age.
This reminds me of a long conversation I had with a 50-something Romanian on a train in Romania in 2007 (travelling with some uni friends for another friend's wedding). He'd seen it all, of course, from Ceausescu onwards. He was mainly very positive about joining the EU - he ran businesses and saw the opportunities there, but was also concerned that there would be a brain drain. His own children were planning to study abroad (both in UK, which he thought was a great thing) but he worried that they would never return, not for them - it seemed to him a rational choice and in their interests - but for what that would mean for Romania.
It was a real eye-opener for us, who knew little of the country or what was happening there - our friend was marrying a Romanian who we did not know very well.
The wedding was great fun, one of those that goes on all day, with constant rounds of food, drink and dancing (not meal, then party as in British weddings) with people drifting in and out, going for walks, coming back. The trip also included the most terrifying taxi ride of my life.
But of course the nutjobs will tell you hers wasn't Brexit.
They have wrecked this country for at least a generation. Arseholes.
If Mrs May’s deal wasn’t Brexit, then all those opposed to Brexit should have voted for it.
I "liked" this, and then I "unliked", because I remembered that of course the problem with May's deal was that those opposed to Brexit thought it was Brexit while those in favour of it thought it wasn't. Which in retrospect (hell, even at the time) means it was probably the perfect compromise and everyone should have just agreed to vote for it. Instead, no-one did.
Didn't even JRM and Boris Johnson vote for it in the end?
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Licencing restrictions, including the issuances and conditions of licences, are managed by local authorities.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
Well, yes, pro-Remain MPs were wrong to have opposed TMay’s deal in 2019. Doesn't need hindsight, that was completely clear at the time. What the hell were they thinking? Didn't the fact that they were going through the lobbies with Mark Francois, John Redwood, Steve Baker etc - not to mention John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn - not give them a clue?
The long term Remain epic fail is over generations. If you want to support a wholly novel integrationist policy uniting disparate peoples 500,000,000 strong, you have to do it either by democracy and consultation (ie liberal democracy) or by authoritarianism (like China).
Doing it by stealth, diversionary tactics, factual inexactitude and manipulation with a bit of bullying can't work reliably.
So Remain failed from 1972 to 2015, because it failed to win hearts and minds, and failed to set a decent and truthful vision before a properly sceptical public. The Remain campaign was worse; and the Remain tactics post referendum deserve their own courses in management, business studies, politics and history degrees - "How to turn a setback into a catastrophe."
We come, I think, from opposite sides of the Brexit debate - you voted leave? But I tend to agree with everything you write on it.
Successive governments, since Thatcher (and even hers in its later times) took the line that the EU was a shitshow, but that the positives just about outweighed the negatives. Even Blair, who was the most positive in my lifetime, I think, preferred not to talk about it. There was never, in my lifetime, a real positive case made for being in.
Completely agree. I am a leaver, but was perfectly persuadable of the alternative. To be persuaded required lots of real answers. But one alone was critical: What is the destination in terms of sovereignty and statehood? That had to be a clear Yes or No.
Others were How does its democracy work, and is it one? Is it a protectionist rich club? How does the voter change it? Why does it impoverish poor third world farmers? How can it function with some in NATO and some neutral? How does it defend itself?
Once the Euro was established a single state was the unambiguous destination, but the EU and UK was in a spiral of silence and denial about the meaning of the obvious. And people made fun of those who pointed out the obvious. At that point a good cause was a lost cause.
And yet -
(i) The EU becomes a unified single superstate.
(ii) The EU collapses and is no more.
I would bet you a large sum of money at evens - as large as you want - that in 50 years from now neither of the above will have happened. The EU will evolve as it evolves but its members will remain individual and distinct and sovereign.
Kidding on the bet obviously, collection problems, but you see what I mean. All of this eurosceptic analysis, this "common currency = single state' algebra, has a fundamental whiff of absolutist unreality about it.
"Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties."
They already can do if they have such a licence. The way this story is reported implies that pubs have to close at 10.30pm on Sundays – a law that hasn't existed for sixteen years.
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Licencing restrictions, including the issuances and conditions of licences, are managed by local authorities.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
Yes. The 'announcement' from national government is just a daft headline grabbing gimmick.
But, my real ire is with the journalist who wrote this bilge. The implication is that pubs have to close at 10.30pm on Sundays. That is total shite – hasn't been true for a generation.
Sir Keir framing the 21st July easing of the remaining restrictions as ‘all or nothing recklessness’ is the equivalent of telling a driver, who has slowed down from 100mph to 5mph, that slamming on the brakes is risking whiplash & sending themselves through the windscreen
And his own position really isn't any different...masks on trains...something something ventalation... pay people more to isolate, when the vast majority don't has nothing to do with money.
He's a lawyer. The default position of most is, "have you considered the risk" not, "have you considered the benefit". There's nothing wrong with that of itself but there's a reason why good lawyers make good second in commands but poor leaders.
For context, that number that have applied is 5% of the population of Romania.
Or was 5%.
Romania's population decline is little short of catastrophic for the country. Like the Irish emigration centuries ago. Since 1990 their population has fallen by a sixth by 2019 and the fall has only been accelerating in recent years. Since its primarily the healthy, young people who can work who are emigrating, this is awful for their demographics.
I'm not sure what can be done about it to help them, but we are not helping their country by one-way draining so many of their people of working age.
Yes, Romania has been utterly hollowed out by emigration.
There will be some positives in remittances from those living abroad, and they are looking to non-EU Ukraine for tradesmen, but losing a sixth of your population in a couple of decades leaves a huge burden on the state.
Bulgaria is the same - outside of Sofia the only people left are the elderly.
"Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties."
They already can do if they have such a licence. The way this story is reported implies that pubs have to close at 10.30pm on Sundays – a law that hasn't existed for sixteen years.
That’s a big IF. Many pubs don’t have such a licence. The story is that no pub needs to apply for an extension on this day.
Well, yes, pro-Remain MPs were wrong to have opposed TMay’s deal in 2019. Doesn't need hindsight, that was completely clear at the time. What the hell were they thinking? Didn't the fact that they were going through the lobbies with Mark Francois, John Redwood, Steve Baker etc - not to mention John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn - not give them a clue?
The long term Remain epic fail is over generations. If you want to support a wholly novel integrationist policy uniting disparate peoples 500,000,000 strong, you have to do it either by democracy and consultation (ie liberal democracy) or by authoritarianism (like China).
Doing it by stealth, diversionary tactics, factual inexactitude and manipulation with a bit of bullying can't work reliably.
So Remain failed from 1972 to 2015, because it failed to win hearts and minds, and failed to set a decent and truthful vision before a properly sceptical public. The Remain campaign was worse; and the Remain tactics post referendum deserve their own courses in management, business studies, politics and history degrees - "How to turn a setback into a catastrophe."
We come, I think, from opposite sides of the Brexit debate - you voted leave? But I tend to agree with everything you write on it.
Successive governments, since Thatcher (and even hers in its later times) took the line that the EU was a shitshow, but that the positives just about outweighed the negatives. Even Blair, who was the most positive in my lifetime, I think, preferred not to talk about it. There was never, in my lifetime, a real positive case made for being in.
Completely agree. I am a leaver, but was perfectly persuadable of the alternative. To be persuaded required lots of real answers. But one alone was critical: What is the destination in terms of sovereignty and statehood? That had to be a clear Yes or No.
Others were How does its democracy work, and is it one? Is it a protectionist rich club? How does the voter change it? Why does it impoverish poor third world farmers? How can it function with some in NATO and some neutral? How does it defend itself?
Once the Euro was established a single state was the unambiguous destination, but the EU and UK was in a spiral of silence and denial about the meaning of the obvious. And people made fun of those who pointed out the obvious. At that point a good cause was a lost cause.
Completely agreed. I agree with every single word of this.
The sad reality is that some today would rather lie and pretend that Ever Closer Union is not a thing despite the Euro, see the dishonest remarks from Nigel earlier in this thread, than actually advocate for a democratic European federation as the end state to be in favour of.
The only thing I'm not certain of is if the dishonest people claiming that Ever Closer Union isn't real are just lying to us, or if they're lying to themselves and actually believe that too.
Once there is a Euro and an ECB it isn't possible to believe that there is no intention of a single state, whatever you tell other people. Overriding law making powers, a parliament, currency, central bank, a court which overrides state courts, flag, anthem, cabinet, treaty making powers, embassies....all add up. This is not the stuff of a glorified Hanseatic League
It's no good to pretend it has no such ambitions because it doesn't have cricket team. And there is nothing wrong with the vision in itself. it's the denial that is the killer, because that involves failing to develop a coherent idea of the European future.
It would be rather good to have all the good bits of the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Western Church of Erasmus, a shared classical and Judeo Christian culture together with robust British empiricism, with all the bad bits removed and democracy added. But that was not offered to us.
Its not only not possible to believe it, it runs completely against history.
If you read the US Constitution the Federal state never originally had that many powers and the 10th Amendment is much clearer on the principle of subsidiarity than the EU Treaties have ever been, but over time the ratchet effect has driven powers too the centre. The same is happening with the nascent European state just as it did with the nascent American one in the past.
The only element of a federal state the EU currently lacks is the ability to raise its own tax rates, though developments are ongoing in that already as per the two trillion Euro Covid recovery fund.
To believe that the EU is not going to have any further integration runs completely against the past few decades of European history, the past couple of centuries of federal history globally, and the stated desires of European leaders like President Macron and others.
Around the time of our initial EEC accession, a civil servant submitted a report to PM Ted Heath, making the fiat assertion that, in the end, and over time, a UK inside the Common Market (and what it would become) would have less sovereign power, in many ways, than an American state inside the USA
Needless to say the charming Mr Heath did not relay this info to British voters
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Licencing restrictions, including the issuances and conditions of licences, are managed by local authorities.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
The Licensing Act 2003 sets the law on how local authorities and pubs operate, the local authorities don't make their own law up even if they manage how it is operated.
If left to their own devices then yes pubs could apply to their local authority to vary the terms of their licence however the deadline to make such an application in time for Sunday has already lapsed so it couldn't be made in time by law.
So only a relaxation of the law covers all pubs. Yes its redundant for those who already have a licence, but for those who don't have a licence going past 11 it is the law that is being relaxed.
By the government relaxing the law nationwide it removes any responsibility for pubs to apply to the council to vary the licence - an application its in fact too late to make anyway.
Past 10.30pm according to the story – the closing time for pubs on Sundays last seen in .... 2004.
But of course the nutjobs will tell you hers wasn't Brexit.
They have wrecked this country for at least a generation. Arseholes.
If Mrs May’s deal wasn’t Brexit, then all those opposed to Brexit should have voted for it.
I "liked" this, and then I "unliked", because I remembered that of course the problem with May's deal was that those opposed to Brexit thought it was Brexit while those in favour of it thought it wasn't. Which in retrospect (hell, even at the time) means it was probably the perfect compromise and everyone should have just agreed to vote for it. Instead, no-one did.
It is a logical fallacy to suggest just because an option is in-between everyone it is a perfect compromise and everyone should go for it.
If you go to a small town train station with two platforms there might be a disagreement about which platform people want to go on. Some people might want to go on platform 1 to go Northbound, others might want to go on platform 2 to go Southbound. Either is a perfectly reasonable choice. Standing instead on the tracks halfway between the two platforms is most definitely not a good idea.
This thread from a member of iSage called Anthony Costello has been recommended this morning by the Professor of Public Engagement in Science from Birmingham Uni. ("Please take the time to read this thread").
The story so far. About the failure of public health. Not masks. Look at the death rates in China (pop 1.4bn), Vietnam (100m), USA (340m) and UK (68m). Yes, you cannot see the death curves in the first two because they are so low. (1)
But of course the nutjobs will tell you hers wasn't Brexit.
They have wrecked this country for at least a generation. Arseholes.
If Mrs May’s deal wasn’t Brexit, then all those opposed to Brexit should have voted for it.
I "liked" this, and then I "unliked", because I remembered that of course the problem with May's deal was that those opposed to Brexit thought it was Brexit while those in favour of it thought it wasn't. Which in retrospect (hell, even at the time) means it was probably the perfect compromise and everyone should have just agreed to vote for it. Instead, no-one did.
It is a logical fallacy to suggest just because an option is in-between everyone it is a perfect compromise and everyone should go for it.
If you go to a small town train station with two platforms there might be a disagreement about which platform people want to go on. Some people might want to go on platform 1 to go Northbound, others might want to go on platform 2 to go Southbound. Either is a perfectly reasonable choice. Standing instead on the tracks halfway between the two platforms is most definitely not a good idea.
But if there is one train then they can all get on it, and half get off at the first stop before the train reverses.
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Licencing restrictions, including the issuances and conditions of licences, are managed by local authorities.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
Yes. The 'announcement' from national government is just a daft headline grabbing gimmick.
But, my real ire is with the journalist who wrote this bilge. The implication is that pubs have to close at 10.30pm on Sundays. That is total shite – hasn't been true for a generation.
Bullshit, you're the only one reading that implication because you're obsessed about something that hasn't been true for a generation.
The implication is that without a relaxation in the law pubs would have to close by 11 if that's what their licence says, which is the law.
Without a relaxation of the law any pub open and trading past 11 on Sunday if their licence says they must close by 11 would be in violation of the Licensing Act 2003 and subject to criminal penalties. That is the law today, not the law of a generation ago.
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Licencing restrictions, including the issuances and conditions of licences, are managed by local authorities.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
Yes. The 'announcement' from national government is just a daft headline grabbing gimmick.
But, my real ire is with the journalist who wrote this bilge. The implication is that pubs have to close at 10.30pm on Sundays. That is total shite – hasn't been true for a generation.
Bullshit, you're the only one reading that implication because you're obsessed about something that hasn't been true for a generation.
The implication is that without a relaxation in the law pubs would have to close by 11 if that's what their licence says, which is the law.
Without a relaxation of the law any pub open and trading past 11 on Sunday if their licence says they must close by 11 would be in violation of the Licensing Act 2003 and subject to criminal penalties. That is the law today, not the law of a generation ago.
Nope.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
Pubs haven't been forced to close at 10.30pm on Sundays for 16 years, which is what the story implies.
For context, that number that have applied is 5% of the population of Romania.
Or was 5%.
Romania's population decline is little short of catastrophic for the country. Like the Irish emigration centuries ago. Since 1990 their population has fallen by a sixth by 2019 and the fall has only been accelerating in recent years. Since its primarily the healthy, young people who can work who are emigrating, this is awful for their demographics.
I'm not sure what can be done about it to help them, but we are not helping their country by one-way draining so many of their people of working age.
Yes, Romania has been utterly hollowed out by emigration.
There will be some positives in remittances from those living abroad, and they are looking to non-EU Ukraine for tradesmen, but losing a sixth of your population in a couple of decades leaves a huge burden on the state.
Bulgaria is the same - outside of Sofia the only people left are the elderly.
I hear reliable reports that there are plenty of comely young Bulgar wenches in the stews of “Sunny Beach”
Conservatives and [Boris] Johnson supporters are less ecstatic. Some seem to believe that Southgate is becoming a tool of deep Woke — with one Tory strategist telling me that the England manager’s patriotism essay was “suspiciously well-written”....
Well if your standard is the PM's efforts, then perhaps that's true.
For context, that number that have applied is 5% of the population of Romania.
Or was 5%.
Romania's population decline is little short of catastrophic for the country. Like the Irish emigration centuries ago. Since 1990 their population has fallen by a sixth by 2019 and the fall has only been accelerating in recent years. Since its primarily the healthy, young people who can work who are emigrating, this is awful for their demographics.
I'm not sure what can be done about it to help them, but we are not helping their country by one-way draining so many of their people of working age.
Yes, Romania has been utterly hollowed out by emigration.
There will be some positives in remittances from those living abroad, and they are looking to non-EU Ukraine for tradesmen, but losing a sixth of your population in a couple of decades leaves a huge burden on the state.
Haven't the likes of Romanian and some other Eastern block countries hard hit by mass emigration also been doing deals to bring in North Korean slave labour?
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Licencing restrictions, including the issuances and conditions of licences, are managed by local authorities.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
The Licensing Act 2003 sets the law on how local authorities and pubs operate, the local authorities don't make their own law up even if they manage how it is operated.
If left to their own devices then yes pubs could apply to their local authority to vary the terms of their licence however the deadline to make such an application in time for Sunday has already lapsed so it couldn't be made in time by law.
So only a relaxation of the law covers all pubs. Yes its redundant for those who already have a licence, but for those who don't have a licence going past 11 it is the law that is being relaxed.
By the government relaxing the law nationwide it removes any responsibility for pubs to apply to the council to vary the licence - an application its in fact too late to make anyway.
Past 10.30pm according to the story – the closing time for pubs on Sundays last seen in .... 2004.
Not if their licence says 10:30 which many pubs licences still say today! 🤦♂️
That is the law today in 2021, not the law of 2001.
Try running a pub and being open outside and trading outside of your licensing laws and try telling the Police that no such law applies if you're outside of your hours because the law was abolished in 2004. We still have laws today and a relaxation is necessary for all pubs currently licenced to before 11:15. 🙄
Well, yes, pro-Remain MPs were wrong to have opposed TMay’s deal in 2019. Doesn't need hindsight, that was completely clear at the time. What the hell were they thinking? Didn't the fact that they were going through the lobbies with Mark Francois, John Redwood, Steve Baker etc - not to mention John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn - not give them a clue?
The long term Remain epic fail is over generations. If you want to support a wholly novel integrationist policy uniting disparate peoples 500,000,000 strong, you have to do it either by democracy and consultation (ie liberal democracy) or by authoritarianism (like China).
Doing it by stealth, diversionary tactics, factual inexactitude and manipulation with a bit of bullying can't work reliably.
So Remain failed from 1972 to 2015, because it failed to win hearts and minds, and failed to set a decent and truthful vision before a properly sceptical public. The Remain campaign was worse; and the Remain tactics post referendum deserve their own courses in management, business studies, politics and history degrees - "How to turn a setback into a catastrophe."
We come, I think, from opposite sides of the Brexit debate - you voted leave? But I tend to agree with everything you write on it.
Successive governments, since Thatcher (and even hers in its later times) took the line that the EU was a shitshow, but that the positives just about outweighed the negatives. Even Blair, who was the most positive in my lifetime, I think, preferred not to talk about it. There was never, in my lifetime, a real positive case made for being in.
Completely agree. I am a leaver, but was perfectly persuadable of the alternative. To be persuaded required lots of real answers. But one alone was critical: What is the destination in terms of sovereignty and statehood? That had to be a clear Yes or No.
Others were How does its democracy work, and is it one? Is it a protectionist rich club? How does the voter change it? Why does it impoverish poor third world farmers? How can it function with some in NATO and some neutral? How does it defend itself?
Once the Euro was established a single state was the unambiguous destination, but the EU and UK was in a spiral of silence and denial about the meaning of the obvious. And people made fun of those who pointed out the obvious. At that point a good cause was a lost cause.
And yet -
(i) The EU becomes a unified single superstate.
(ii) The EU collapses and is no more.
I would bet you a large sum of money at evens - as large as you want - that in 50 years from now neither of the above will have happened. The EU will evolve as it evolves but its members will remain individual and distinct and sovereign.
Kidding on the bet obviously, collection problems, but you see what I mean. All of this eurosceptic analysis, this "common currency = single state' algebra, has a fundamental whiff of absolutist unreality about it.
For such a bet you would have to define at what point the eu becomes a superstate.
For example is it when the EU gains tax raising powers? I have no doubt when it crosses the line it will still claim it is just a bunch of countries with common interests
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 27m Some people telling me Labour’s policy is to simply prevent all “avoidable” deaths. But then that requires a total and immediate lockdown. Given every loosening potentially increases transmission, infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths.
That's the point I keep making. Labour's position is illogical. Current measures aren't stopping Delta, so if you want to stop Delta you need to tighten not loosen measures.
It is logical. It's positioning Labour to be able to blame Johnson and his government for all the Covid deaths and serious illness arising post July 19th from the 3rd wave.
Johnson's move to fully reopen is political. So is Starmer's response. This is how things will be from now on. Normal politics is back. I think it will benefit Labour but we'll see.
Why is the move to fully open political? It was meant to happen last month, but we didn’t know how bad the infection/death ratio of the latest variant was going to be - now we know. Sir Keir’s just trying to draw a dividing line, but it’s not a free hit; if all goes well, he is the grinch that tried to steal summer and he wont be allowed to forget it
It is NOW political because Hancock and Batley and Spen happened subsequent to last month's postponement. If all goes well it is happy days for Johnson and I congratule him on his 2023 GE victory. ll If it does not, it is bad news for him and the rest of us.
Conservatives and [Boris] Johnson supporters are less ecstatic. Some seem to believe that Southgate is becoming a tool of deep Woke — with one Tory strategist telling me that the England manager’s patriotism essay was “suspiciously well-written”. https://www.ft.com/content/f177cfd0-24b8-49ba-bdd8-99b975828d23
What the heck is "deep Woke"?
Part of the new language of the culture war. See also Luntz, Frank... and occasional @Leon postings.
On topic, who gives a shiny shit? Boris got an 80 seat majority. 19 months on, he still has an 80 seat majority. He is likely to have a majority close to 80 for the rest of his term, 2023/24.
Therein lies the problem - you win a majority and can then do whatever you like but it comes from our unrepresentative electoral system rather than from the voters. It's a manufactured majority - in any other European country it wouldn't have happened.
On the longer term EU issue there has never ever been a decisive majority for leaving in the way there was for joining. Whilst rejoining is clearly not an option in the short term the political base for it is already strong.
The Tories own Brexit lock, stock and barrel and while that may have given them a short term advantage let's see how it plays out in the long run. Even at this early stage a plurality of voters believe that Brexit was wrong and many won't be voting Tory again in a hurry. They had better hope that Brexit delivers enough to keep their new best friends in places like Hartlepool on board.
Europeans love the EU project so much that only 5.6m of them want settled status in Brexit Britain.
That's a total non-sequitur, but I guess we should be used to that by now.
The remainer's attitude is turning into the longest sulk in history.
Britain's democracy is far from perfect, but its good enough that if the electorate really wanted brexit stopped, it would have been.
Similarly, we are going back to freedom because that is what people want. Its not what the commentariat want. Or the opposition. But then these days their wishes and those of much of the electorate rarely coincide.
With the risk of getting into one of those arguments that we have all had over and over again for the last x years, what freedom have we actually gone back to? I have gained none. Personally all I have had is extra paperwork, my freedom to travel in Europe curtailed (which is currently a real headache) and a pensions campaign I am involved with potentially scuppered by the changes regarding the European Court.
Personally, I rate the loss of freedom as a greater defect of Brexit than the economic damage. Firstly because liberty should always a greater good than economic welfare. Secondly because the economic damage is a direct consequence of the loss of freedom, particularly the freedom of movement and the freedom to trade,
"Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties."
They already can do if they have such a licence. The way this story is reported implies that pubs have to close at 10.30pm on Sundays – a law that hasn't existed for sixteen years.
Your argument fails at the if.
The point is that they'll be able to be open even if they do not have such a licence. Because the licensing law will be relaxed for those without such a licence. What part of that are you failing to understand? 🤦♂️
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Licencing restrictions, including the issuances and conditions of licences, are managed by local authorities.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
The Licensing Act 2003 sets the law on how local authorities and pubs operate, the local authorities don't make their own law up even if they manage how it is operated.
If left to their own devices then yes pubs could apply to their local authority to vary the terms of their licence however the deadline to make such an application in time for Sunday has already lapsed so it couldn't be made in time by law.
So only a relaxation of the law covers all pubs. Yes its redundant for those who already have a licence, but for those who don't have a licence going past 11 it is the law that is being relaxed.
By the government relaxing the law nationwide it removes any responsibility for pubs to apply to the council to vary the licence - an application its in fact too late to make anyway.
Past 10.30pm according to the story – the closing time for pubs on Sundays last seen in .... 2004.
For context, that number that have applied is 5% of the population of Romania.
Or was 5%.
Romania's population decline is little short of catastrophic for the country. Like the Irish emigration centuries ago. Since 1990 their population has fallen by a sixth by 2019 and the fall has only been accelerating in recent years. Since its primarily the healthy, young people who can work who are emigrating, this is awful for their demographics.
I'm not sure what can be done about it to help them, but we are not helping their country by one-way draining so many of their people of working age.
Yes, Romania has been utterly hollowed out by emigration.
There will be some positives in remittances from those living abroad, and they are looking to non-EU Ukraine for tradesmen, but losing a sixth of your population in a couple of decades leaves a huge burden on the state.
Bulgaria is the same - outside of Sofia the only people left are the elderly.
The populations of the poorer countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states has fallen by 20-25%. It’s no surprise that this has been a key factor underlying the political shift towards nationalist politics in many of these countries.
This thread from a member of iSage called Anthony Costello has been recommended this morning by the Professor of Public Engagement in Science from Birmingham Uni. ("Please take the time to read this thread").
The story so far. About the failure of public health. Not masks. Look at the death rates in China (pop 1.4bn), Vietnam (100m), USA (340m) and UK (68m). Yes, you cannot see the death curves in the first two because they are so low. (1)
For a man who has covid, he can't he feeling that bad given his constant tweeting / retweeting....
But of course the nutjobs will tell you hers wasn't Brexit.
They have wrecked this country for at least a generation. Arseholes.
If Mrs May’s deal wasn’t Brexit, then all those opposed to Brexit should have voted for it.
I "liked" this, and then I "unliked", because I remembered that of course the problem with May's deal was that those opposed to Brexit thought it was Brexit while those in favour of it thought it wasn't. Which in retrospect (hell, even at the time) means it was probably the perfect compromise and everyone should have just agreed to vote for it. Instead, no-one did.
It is a logical fallacy to suggest just because an option is in-between everyone it is a perfect compromise and everyone should go for it.
If you go to a small town train station with two platforms there might be a disagreement about which platform people want to go on. Some people might want to go on platform 1 to go Northbound, others might want to go on platform 2 to go Southbound. Either is a perfectly reasonable choice. Standing instead on the tracks halfway between the two platforms is most definitely not a good idea.
But if there is one train then they can all get on it, and half get off at the first stop before the train reverses.
Or 10% of them could get taken on board the train they don't want by the rest of the group, then decide to get off the train and get on board another train going the other direction.
Needless to say the charming Mr Heath did not relay this info to British voters
Because it was bollocks
I’d say it has already come true for nations inside the euro. They are more ensnared in the EU than any individual US state and with less autonomous control of laws and regulations
In theory, unlike US states, these euroland countries have the crucial right of secession - that infamous article 50 in Lisbon - but in practise no euro country can or will ever quit the euro as the ensuing chaos would be ruinous. This is why Greece accepted perpetual penury and rule from Berlin rather than leaving the €
Britain got out, arguably, just before this Heathite prediction came true for us
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Licencing restrictions, including the issuances and conditions of licences, are managed by local authorities.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
The Licensing Act 2003 sets the law on how local authorities and pubs operate, the local authorities don't make their own law up even if they manage how it is operated.
If left to their own devices then yes pubs could apply to their local authority to vary the terms of their licence however the deadline to make such an application in time for Sunday has already lapsed so it couldn't be made in time by law.
So only a relaxation of the law covers all pubs. Yes its redundant for those who already have a licence, but for those who don't have a licence going past 11 it is the law that is being relaxed.
By the government relaxing the law nationwide it removes any responsibility for pubs to apply to the council to vary the licence - an application its in fact too late to make anyway.
Past 10.30pm according to the story – the closing time for pubs on Sundays last seen in .... 2004.
Not if their licence says 10:30 which many pubs licences still say today! 🤦♂️
That is the law today in 2021, not the law of 2001.
Try running a pub and being open outside and trading outside of your licensing laws and try telling the Police that no such law applies if you're outside of your hours because the law was abolished in 2004. We still have laws today and a relaxation is necessary for all pubs currently licenced to before 11:15. 🙄
Indeed there's a pub near me that only opens until 9pm on Sundays. But it's not the norm. Nor is 10.30pm – that is myth generated by the press, which on licensing stories, seem stuck in 2004.
The Huff Post even goes as far as to say "normally pubs have to close at 10.30pm on a Sunday" – that is unmitigated garbage.
More proof that the press are best ignored when it comes to licensing stories.
Well, yes, pro-Remain MPs were wrong to have opposed TMay’s deal in 2019. Doesn't need hindsight, that was completely clear at the time. What the hell were they thinking? Didn't the fact that they were going through the lobbies with Mark Francois, John Redwood, Steve Baker etc - not to mention John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn - not give them a clue?
The long term Remain epic fail is over generations. If you want to support a wholly novel integrationist policy uniting disparate peoples 500,000,000 strong, you have to do it either by democracy and consultation (ie liberal democracy) or by authoritarianism (like China).
Doing it by stealth, diversionary tactics, factual inexactitude and manipulation with a bit of bullying can't work reliably.
So Remain failed from 1972 to 2015, because it failed to win hearts and minds, and failed to set a decent and truthful vision before a properly sceptical public. The Remain campaign was worse; and the Remain tactics post referendum deserve their own courses in management, business studies, politics and history degrees - "How to turn a setback into a catastrophe."
We come, I think, from opposite sides of the Brexit debate - you voted leave? But I tend to agree with everything you write on it.
Successive governments, since Thatcher (and even hers in its later times) took the line that the EU was a shitshow, but that the positives just about outweighed the negatives. Even Blair, who was the most positive in my lifetime, I think, preferred not to talk about it. There was never, in my lifetime, a real positive case made for being in.
Completely agree. I am a leaver, but was perfectly persuadable of the alternative. To be persuaded required lots of real answers. But one alone was critical: What is the destination in terms of sovereignty and statehood? That had to be a clear Yes or No.
Others were How does its democracy work, and is it one? Is it a protectionist rich club? How does the voter change it? Why does it impoverish poor third world farmers? How can it function with some in NATO and some neutral? How does it defend itself?
Once the Euro was established a single state was the unambiguous destination, but the EU and UK was in a spiral of silence and denial about the meaning of the obvious. And people made fun of those who pointed out the obvious. At that point a good cause was a lost cause.
And yet -
(i) The EU becomes a unified single superstate.
(ii) The EU collapses and is no more.
I would bet you a large sum of money at evens - as large as you want - that in 50 years from now neither of the above will have happened. The EU will evolve as it evolves but its members will remain individual and distinct and sovereign.
Kidding on the bet obviously, collection problems, but you see what I mean. All of this eurosceptic analysis, this "common currency = single state' algebra, has a fundamental whiff of absolutist unreality about it.
Scotland is individual, distinct and in many ways sovereign versus England and the UK. Ditto Texas.
Pubs to stay open on Sunday to 11.15pm to cover possibility of extra time and penalties
AAAAAAARGH!
Here it is, right on cue, the gimmicking nonsense story about licensing laws being extended.
Yet again, yet again: there is NO national law preventing pubs opening past 11pm. None.
That law was abolished in 2005. Sixteen effing years ago. Most pubs around me open until 12am anyway, as a matter of course.
Why does the BBC persist in repeating this myth that English pubs have to close at 11pm? It is utter rubbish.
You're uncharacteristically wrong here Anabob. This is not remotely gimmicky.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
Sure, I don't deny that. It is the way the story is presented (all such stories are presented like this).
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that preclude pubs from opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
You're totally wrong.
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
Licencing restrictions, including the issuances and conditions of licences, are managed by local authorities.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
The Licensing Act 2003 sets the law on how local authorities and pubs operate, the local authorities don't make their own law up even if they manage how it is operated.
If left to their own devices then yes pubs could apply to their local authority to vary the terms of their licence however the deadline to make such an application in time for Sunday has already lapsed so it couldn't be made in time by law.
So only a relaxation of the law covers all pubs. Yes its redundant for those who already have a licence, but for those who don't have a licence going past 11 it is the law that is being relaxed.
By the government relaxing the law nationwide it removes any responsibility for pubs to apply to the council to vary the licence - an application its in fact too late to make anyway.
Past 10.30pm according to the story – the closing time for pubs on Sundays last seen in .... 2004.
Not if their licence says 10:30 which many pubs licences still say today! 🤦♂️
That is the law today in 2021, not the law of 2001.
Try running a pub and being open outside and trading outside of your licensing laws and try telling the Police that no such law applies if you're outside of your hours because the law was abolished in 2004. We still have laws today and a relaxation is necessary for all pubs currently licenced to before 11:15. 🙄
Indeed there's a pub near me that only opens until 9pm on Sundays. But it's not the norm. Nor is 10.30pm – that is myth generated by the press, which on licensing stories, seem stuck in 2004.
The Huff Post even goes as far as to say "normally pubs have to close at 10.30pm on a Sunday" – that is unmitigated garbage.
More proof that the press are best ignored when it comes to licensing stories.
And if that pub that normally closes at 9pm is only licensed until 9pm but wants to be open until 11:15 this weekend then is the relaxation of the law "gimmicky nonsense".
Yes some of the press may be wrong, but so were you. You claimed that no law applied here, you were 100% wrong, licensing laws do apply which state that a pub must only be trading within the hours permitted by its premises licence and if their premises licence says they must close by or before 11pm then without a legal relaxation or a temporary events notice or similar all such pubs would by law be closed on Sunday before the match finished potentially.
Quite possibly both are true. Many applications for settled and pre-settled status are from abroad. I know several myself, who want to keep visa free work travel possible.
"Think 6m EU citizens live in the UK? Think again - many may not live in the country at all, said experts at the Office of National Statistics and the Migration Observatory at Oxford uni." https://t.co/ek837aLx4a
But of course the nutjobs will tell you hers wasn't Brexit.
They have wrecked this country for at least a generation. Arseholes.
If Mrs May’s deal wasn’t Brexit, then all those opposed to Brexit should have voted for it.
I "liked" this, and then I "unliked", because I remembered that of course the problem with May's deal was that those opposed to Brexit thought it was Brexit while those in favour of it thought it wasn't. Which in retrospect (hell, even at the time) means it was probably the perfect compromise and everyone should have just agreed to vote for it. Instead, no-one did.
It is a logical fallacy to suggest just because an option is in-between everyone it is a perfect compromise and everyone should go for it.
If you go to a small town train station with two platforms there might be a disagreement about which platform people want to go on. Some people might want to go on platform 1 to go Northbound, others might want to go on platform 2 to go Southbound. Either is a perfectly reasonable choice. Standing instead on the tracks halfway between the two platforms is most definitely not a good idea.
But if there is one train then they can all get on it, and half get off at the first stop before the train reverses.
Or 10% of them could get taken on board the train they don't want by the rest of the group, then decide to get off the train and get on board another train going the other direction.
It's a trick question. Both trains arrive at the same time, even the one with XR activists glued to the roof.
Comments
However, take a random sample of people for whom the above is not only a concern but just about their BIGGEST concern in politics, and you will find in that sample a degree of racism that's well above the norm.
Infections in children aren't worth worrying about, the hospitalisation rates are so low.
There are only about 7 millon adults who haven't had a first dose now, which gives some idea of the size of the pool of avalible people to infect. About 20% will have infection aquired immunity, so it's more like 5.5 millon who are actually likely to catch it.
Current infection rates are running at about 200k/week, so it's a bit over two doublings to 1 millon a week, say a ten day doubling cycle. If we actually hit the 1 millon a week mark, nearly half of those 5.5 millon people will have caught it on the way there. In practice, the R number will come crashing down as the disease finds it harder and harder to find people to infect. You can see this happening area by area in real time if you look at the MSOA infection rate maps - the areas where delta hit first ramped to a peak, and are now drifitng back down. The ramp slope was briefly spectacular, but has then flatterned out or even started trending down.
Pubs have their own licensing hours and operating outside of those hours is illegal regardless of the lack of a national law. A great many pubs up and down the country will have their licence saying 11pm on Sundays and that is that without an extension. Any pub remaining open past 11pm if their licence says 11pm without a Temporary Events Notice will be breaking the law.
By doing a national extension all pubs across the country automatically get the extended hours without having to file for a TEN or similar.
That most pubs around you are licensed until 12pm doesn't mean all of them are. An extension means that all are.
It seems to be an all downside/no upside thing to have. I don't know why you would have it unless you really had to.
Johnson's move to fully reopen is political. So is Starmer's response. This is how things will be from now on. Normal politics is back. I think it will benefit Labour but we'll see.
Yes, I thought you'd all be excited by that.
Now, if the story said, those pubs that only have a Sunday licence until 11pm will automatically be allowed to open later, fine.
But they don't say that. They say this.
"Licensing laws are to be relaxed"
What laws will these be then?
There are NO SUCH LAWS that prevent pubs opening past 11pm, and haven't been any such laws for SIXTEEN YEARS.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
Romania's population decline is little short of catastrophic for the country. Like the Irish emigration centuries ago. Since 1990 their population has fallen by a sixth by 2019 and the fall has only been accelerating in recent years. Since its primarily the healthy, young people who can work who are emigrating, this is awful for their demographics.
I'm not sure what can be done about it to help them, but we are not helping their country by one-way draining so many of their people of working age.
It was a bit weird. Sue Barker says Raducanu will give an interview later today, so perhaps that will shed more light on it. It's hard to know what it's like to appear on a show court for the first time, but it was a free hit really and I thought she was doing fine.
But it was (and is) a legitimate question that should be answered. What is the end state?
Any pub that is open outside of its licensed hours is in violation of licensing laws and any licensee who is trading outside their licensed hours is committing a criminal offence and can be sent to jail or be subject to an unlimited fine.
The only way pubs with licences restricting them to close by 11pm can be open on Sunday past then is a relaxation of licensing laws.
That there are no laws preventing pubs from having a licence past 11 doesn't mean that there are not licensing laws that do apply and do need to be relaxed for any pubs without such a licence.
This is also without accounting for reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. If fewer people can spread it that means the virus simply has less opportunity to find new hosts so all of these numbers could be significantly smaller in real life.
We got a glimpse of it this morning when a SAGE member confirmed that only 12% of hospital patients for COVID are double jabbed.
Having now agreed a trade deal with the EU our relationship with Europe is now actually not too far from the Common Market we originally joined, we just did not want to be part of the Federal EU Superstate (albeit some staunch EU supporters like Heseltine and Heath and Jenkins post WW2 and the end of the British Empire saw the EEC/EU as a replacement for Empire for us but they are now either dead or very old).
Brexit is not going well: even the Telegraph is admitting as much. It's obvious to most of the rest of us that Theresa May secured a really workable deal which would have preserved everything that was best in our economic interests and kept the union intact.
This current Brexit deal is bordering on disastrous and the word 'border' is apt.
Seriously: they simply hadn't bothered with the stuff at the front and end which ddidn't fit into their mental picture of volume = n papers.
Edit: and it was the publisher. Not some mickey mouse third party.
They have wrecked this country for at least a generation. Arseholes.
Now I know we might have some more Romanians than we thought in the UK, but not sure we have many millions of them all unvaccinated...
https://www.libdems.org.uk/policing-bill
That Politico article may be confusing infections with symptomatic cases.
I'm trying to get a handle on whether or not an asymptomatic infection - which before widespread frequent testing would usually have passed unnoticed and unrecorded - can still give rise to long Covid.
Many people are feeling a lot of psychological wear. How much of this may be due to the long-term effects of an asymptomatic SARSCoV2 infection that didn't register as a "case", that they didn't even notice?
There is no such thing as a zero Covid strategy
There is no such thing as a zero Covid strategy
There is no such thing as a zero Covid strategy
There is no such thing as a zero Covid strategy
https://twitter.com/Paul1Singh/status/1412398991732584449?s=20
Actually, there may be, but it will take several hundred years, if we're lucky.
See Smallpox.
So that’s Labour’s policy. Vote for an end to sex and the death of the human race!
Funnily enough, on the Green, Puritan, transy, genderfluid, bend-the-knee. commie-SAGE fringe of Labour, there are probably quite a few activists who want exactly that.
One other thing to note is how quickly the cases dropped off in India. Maybe this is what the Delta variant does.
I'm currently wading through the proposed changes to insurance company capital regulation, that is only possible because we're now out of the EU and hence have some freedom to diverge.
Also I saw a news article the other day about a private member's bill on overturning the EU's ruling on requiring vehicles kept off road to have third party insurance. The bill has Government support and is expected to pass.
That's just my industry, and it's only been six months, and there's a pandemic on which is severely draining available Parliamentary time.
Edit: article here on the second point, estimating the impact of not implementing the ECJ directive as a £2bn saving for the UK economy. Again, that's just one ruling.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-06-29/hcws131
There will be some positives in remittances from those living abroad, and they are looking to non-EU Ukraine for tradesmen, but losing a sixth of your population in a couple of decades leaves a huge burden on the state.
It's largely caused by communications failures and speaking many languages, which has certain echoes in the modern world in which sometimes people speak English but their usage and understanding of vocabulary is so utterly divergent that it causes confusion rather than clarity.
So you're both right. There's not much need for national government to do much to allow pubs to stay open, but there are still restrictions on pubs which come from the licencing regime. I assume pubs will need to confirm with their relevant local authority.
In contrast Poland's population has flatlined.
The question is why. RCS says voluntary lockdown - everyone gets scared and hides. Yet, afterwards, COVID doesn't return as people go back to normal(ish).
COVID seems to hit a wall of some kind...
If left to their own devices then yes pubs could apply to their local authority to vary the terms of their licence however the deadline to make such an application in time for Sunday has already lapsed so it couldn't be made in time by law.
So only a relaxation of the law covers all pubs. Yes its redundant for those who already have a licence, but for those who don't have a licence going past 11 it is the law that is being relaxed.
By the government relaxing the law nationwide it removes any responsibility for pubs to apply to the council to vary the licence - an application its in fact too late to make anyway.
It was a real eye-opener for us, who knew little of the country or what was happening there - our friend was marrying a Romanian who we did not know very well.
The wedding was great fun, one of those that goes on all day, with constant rounds of food, drink and dancing (not meal, then party as in British weddings) with people drifting in and out, going for walks, coming back. The trip also included the most terrifying taxi ride of my life.
(i) The EU becomes a unified single superstate.
(ii) The EU collapses and is no more.
I would bet you a large sum of money at evens - as large as you want - that in 50 years from now neither of the above will have happened. The EU will evolve as it evolves but its members will remain individual and distinct and sovereign.
Kidding on the bet obviously, collection problems, but you see what I mean. All of this eurosceptic analysis, this "common currency = single state' algebra, has a fundamental whiff of absolutist unreality about it.
They already can do if they have such a licence. The way this story is reported implies that pubs have to close at 10.30pm on Sundays – a law that hasn't existed for sixteen years.
Support: 42%
Neither: 28%
Oppose: 26%
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/2019-conservative-voters-approve-least-of-the-partys-immigration-and-housing-policies/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1412396058030874629/photo/1
In that circumstance, a failure to back May's deal or try to add on a referendum just made no sense.
As I said repeatedly at the time, if very pro- and very anti-EU types are voting the same way somebody's buggering it up.
But, my real ire is with the journalist who wrote this bilge. The implication is that pubs have to close at 10.30pm on Sundays. That is total shite – hasn't been true for a generation.
Needless to say the charming Mr Heath did not relay this info to British voters
If you go to a small town train station with two platforms there might be a disagreement about which platform people want to go on. Some people might want to go on platform 1 to go Northbound, others might want to go on platform 2 to go Southbound. Either is a perfectly reasonable choice. Standing instead on the tracks halfway between the two platforms is most definitely not a good idea.
This thread from a member of iSage called Anthony Costello has been recommended this morning by the Professor of Public Engagement in Science from Birmingham Uni. ("Please take the time to read this thread").
Full of politics.
https://twitter.com/globalhlthtwit/status/1412348342923845633
The story so far. About the failure of public health. Not masks. Look at the death rates in China (pop 1.4bn), Vietnam (100m), USA (340m) and UK (68m). Yes, you cannot see the death curves in the first two because they are so low. (1)
The implication is that without a relaxation in the law pubs would have to close by 11 if that's what their licence says, which is the law.
Without a relaxation of the law any pub open and trading past 11 on Sunday if their licence says they must close by 11 would be in violation of the Licensing Act 2003 and subject to criminal penalties. That is the law today, not the law of a generation ago.
Licensing laws are to be relaxed to allow pubs to stay open later for Sunday's Euro 2020 final, Downing Street has confirmed.
Premises will be able to stay open for an extra 45 minutes until 11.15pm, in case the game goes to extra time and penalties.
Pubs haven't been forced to close at 10.30pm on Sundays for 16 years, which is what the story implies.
It's absolute garbage.
That is the law today in 2021, not the law of 2001.
Try running a pub and being open outside and trading outside of your licensing laws and try telling the Police that no such law applies if you're outside of your hours because the law was abolished in 2004. We still have laws today and a relaxation is necessary for all pubs currently licenced to before 11:15. 🙄
For example is it when the EU gains tax raising powers?
I have no doubt when it crosses the line it will still claim it is just a bunch of countries with common interests
See also Luntz, Frank... and occasional @Leon postings.
https://youtu.be/CY_BgnZdwko
The point is that they'll be able to be open even if they do not have such a licence. Because the licensing law will be relaxed for those without such a licence. What part of that are you failing to understand? 🤦♂️
In theory, unlike US states, these euroland countries have the crucial right of secession - that infamous article 50 in Lisbon - but in practise no euro country can or will ever quit the euro as the ensuing chaos would be ruinous. This is why Greece accepted perpetual penury and rule from Berlin rather than leaving the €
Britain got out, arguably, just before this Heathite prediction came true for us
The Huff Post even goes as far as to say "normally pubs have to close at 10.30pm on a Sunday" – that is unmitigated garbage.
More proof that the press are best ignored when it comes to licensing stories.
While 45% think Boris has what it takes to be a good PM, only 36% say the same of Sunak and just 13% of Gove, behind Burnham on 37%
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1402188941638385665?s=20
Yes some of the press may be wrong, but so were you. You claimed that no law applied here, you were 100% wrong, licensing laws do apply which state that a pub must only be trading within the hours permitted by its premises licence and if their premises licence says they must close by or before 11pm then without a legal relaxation or a temporary events notice or similar all such pubs would by law be closed on Sunday before the match finished potentially.
"Think 6m EU citizens live in the UK?
Think again - many may not live in the country at all, said experts at the Office of National Statistics and the Migration Observatory at Oxford uni."
https://t.co/ek837aLx4a