Thanks for pointing out the polling facts. Neither side has done much to persuade the other to change its mind.
This is not especially complicated to understand. Both Brexit and Remain are perfectly decent, arguable, honourable positions to hold and go to deeply held convictions. In this respect it is just like Scottish independence.
Scots, having voted in an independence referendum, find that most minds haven't been changed, that the figures are much the same, the decent arguments on both sides have refined a bit but are basically the same. Salmond and Sturgeon have not changed minds much; nor has Boris or Keir or Davey over Brexit.
All it shows is that we should never have got so deeply in to an integrationist EU policy for 40 years without a series of referenda as we went along.
As for Scotland, the big time integration happened before anyone thought of giving plebs like most of us a vote so different historic considerations apply.
Except the decent, arguable, honourable Brexit argument was never stated and it was £350m for the NHS and Turkey is joining the EU.
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?
There was a gamble there could be a 2nd confirmatory referendum on the actual deal and the gamble failed. We all know about failed gambles here on PB don't we?
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."
So how come the other 440,000,000 seem to be generally ok with it?
Jumping into the debate earlier regarding the relaxation of the law to allow pubs to stay open… @Anabobazina is correct in as much that no relaxation of the law is happening, indeed Governments cannot relax laws when they feel fit, rather the Secretary of State is applying S.172 of the Licensing Act - Relaxation of opening hours for special occasions - to allow us to get pissed during a celebration period of national significance…. Whether the Danes or Italians who live here will be bothered is yet to be seen…
Thanks for pointing out the polling facts. Neither side has done much to persuade the other to change its mind.
This is not especially complicated to understand. Both Brexit and Remain are perfectly decent, arguable, honourable positions to hold and go to deeply held convictions. In this respect it is just like Scottish independence.
Scots, having voted in an independence referendum, find that most minds haven't been changed, that the figures are much the same, the decent arguments on both sides have refined a bit but are basically the same. Salmond and Sturgeon have not changed minds much; nor has Boris or Keir or Davey over Brexit.
All it shows is that we should never have got so deeply in to an integrationist EU policy for 40 years without a series of referenda as we went along.
As for Scotland, the big time integration happened before anyone thought of giving plebs like most of us a vote so different historic considerations apply.
Except the decent, arguable, honourable Brexit argument was never stated and it was £350m for the NHS and Turkey is joining the EU.
You do realise that the NHS has got the £350mn in full don't you?
Jumping into the debate earlier regarding the relaxation of the law to allow pubs to stay open… @Anabobazina is correct in as much that no relaxation of the law is happening, indeed Governments cannot relax laws when they feel fit, rather the Secretary of State is applying S.172 of the Licensing Act - Relaxation of opening hours for special occasions - to allow us to get pissed during a celebration period of national significance…. Whether the Danes or Italians who live here will be bothered is yet to be seen…
Indeed. It is looking to extend those pubs’ licences who stop at er, 10.30pm, a closing time rarely seen for 16 years.
It’s not changing the licensing laws at all. Said laws already allow pubs to open to 11.15pm or later on a Sunday should they apply for a licence.
Jumping into the debate earlier regarding the relaxation of the law to allow pubs to stay open… @Anabobazina is correct in as much that no relaxation of the law is happening, indeed Governments cannot relax laws when they feel fit, rather the Secretary of State is applying S.172 of the Licensing Act - Relaxation of opening hours for special occasions - to allow us to get pissed during a celebration period of national significance…. Whether the Danes or Italians who live here will be bothered is yet to be seen…
Indeed. It is looking to extend those pubs’ licences who stop at er, 10.30pm, a closing time rarely seen for 16 years.
It’s not changing the licensing laws at all. Said laws already allow pubs to open to 11.15pm or later on a Sunday should they apply for a licence.
FFS you muppet this means they don't need to apply for a licence! What part of that are you struggling to understand? 🙄
Jumping into the debate earlier regarding the relaxation of the law to allow pubs to stay open… @Anabobazina is correct in as much that no relaxation of the law is happening, indeed Governments cannot relax laws when they feel fit, rather the Secretary of State is applying S.172 of the Licensing Act - Relaxation of opening hours for special occasions - to allow us to get pissed during a celebration period of national significance…. Whether the Danes or Italians who live here will be bothered is yet to be seen…
Indeed. It is looking to extend those pubs’ licences who stop at er, 10.30pm, a closing time rarely seen for 16 years.
It’s not changing the licensing laws at all. Said laws already allow pubs to open to 11.15pm or later on a Sunday should they apply for a licence.
FFS you muppet this means they don't need to apply for a licence! What part of that are you struggling to understand? 🙄
Fewer of the personal insults please Philip!
I am simply saying that the idea that they are “changing licensing laws” is rubbish.
They aren’t. Said laws already allow them to open until 11.15pm. They are simply granting an automatic exemption to those whose existing licenses fall short.
Jumping into the debate earlier regarding the relaxation of the law to allow pubs to stay open… @Anabobazina is correct in as much that no relaxation of the law is happening, indeed Governments cannot relax laws when they feel fit, rather the Secretary of State is applying S.172 of the Licensing Act - Relaxation of opening hours for special occasions - to allow us to get pissed during a celebration period of national significance…. Whether the Danes or Italians who live here will be bothered is yet to be seen…
Indeed. It is looking to extend those pubs’ licences who stop at er, 10.30pm, a closing time rarely seen for 16 years.
It’s not changing the licensing laws at all. Said laws already allow pubs to open to 11.15pm or later on a Sunday should they apply for a licence.
FFS you muppet this means they don't need to apply for a licence! What part of that are you struggling to understand? 🙄
Fewer of the personal insults please Philip!
I am simply saying that the idea that they are “changing licensing laws” is rubbish.
They aren’t. Said laws already allow them to open until 11.15pm. They are simply granting an automatic exemption to those whose existing licenses fall short.
@Philip_Thompson is correct in that the relaxation of opening hours is nothing to do with the opening hours granted to a premises in its licence… it is a blanket application of opening hours to all licensed premises…. But it is not relaxing the law, it is a provision built into the law…. Now, a vexatious lawyer may challenge whether the provision can be used in anticipation of a celebration or, as is the case here, in a situation where there may be no celebration at all…
Jumping into the debate earlier regarding the relaxation of the law to allow pubs to stay open… @Anabobazina is correct in as much that no relaxation of the law is happening, indeed Governments cannot relax laws when they feel fit, rather the Secretary of State is applying S.172 of the Licensing Act - Relaxation of opening hours for special occasions - to allow us to get pissed during a celebration period of national significance…. Whether the Danes or Italians who live here will be bothered is yet to be seen…
Indeed. It is looking to extend those pubs’ licences who stop at er, 10.30pm, a closing time rarely seen for 16 years.
It’s not changing the licensing laws at all. Said laws already allow pubs to open to 11.15pm or later on a Sunday should they apply for a licence.
FFS you muppet this means they don't need to apply for a licence! What part of that are you struggling to understand? 🙄
Fewer of the personal insults please Philip!
I am simply saying that the idea that they are “changing licensing laws” is rubbish.
They aren’t. Said laws already allow them to open until 11.15pm. They are simply granting an automatic exemption to those whose existing licenses fall short.
@Philip_Thompson is correct in that the relaxation of opening hours is nothing to do with the opening hours granted to a premises in its licence… it is a blanket application of opening hours to all licensed premises…. But it is not relaxing the law, it is a provision built into the law…. Now, a vexatious lawyer may challenge whether the provision can be used in anticipation of a celebration or, as is the case here, in a situation where there may be no celebration at all…
Indeed. I have never challenged the notion that it’s a blanket easement. But it’s not changing the laws, as you rightly say.
For some reason, lots of people in the press think pubs have to shut by law at 11pm (10.30pm Sunday).
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.
Sounds like bollox, no way is there anything near to £2B insurance sitting on cars off the road.
At c.£500 per vehicle, that's 4m vehicles, covering ordinary vehicles off the road as well as "motorsports, agricultural machinery and light electric vehicles (LEV)".
Go on, what's your estimate for that number of vehicles then?
Well if they pay 500 for 3rd party they are being robbed , at best I would say 200 and for volume of vehicles I would be surprised if more than 1 million if even that are off road and paying insurance. I also doubt you pay for agricultural machinery that never leaves your property either.
Thanks for pointing out the polling facts. Neither side has done much to persuade the other to change its mind.
This is not especially complicated to understand. Both Brexit and Remain are perfectly decent, arguable, honourable positions to hold and go to deeply held convictions. In this respect it is just like Scottish independence.
Scots, having voted in an independence referendum, find that most minds haven't been changed, that the figures are much the same, the decent arguments on both sides have refined a bit but are basically the same. Salmond and Sturgeon have not changed minds much; nor has Boris or Keir or Davey over Brexit.
All it shows is that we should never have got so deeply in to an integrationist EU policy for 40 years without a series of referenda as we went along.
As for Scotland, the big time integration happened before anyone thought of giving plebs like most of us a vote so different historic considerations apply.
Except the decent, arguable, honourable Brexit argument was never stated and it was £350m for the NHS and Turkey is joining the EU.
You do realise that the NHS has got the £350mn in full don't you?
Pull the other one Philip, they made up some funny numbers and that was it, Show where it was ever delivered, has even one of those 40 hospitals been built yet. Hard to believe anyone can be so soft in the head.
Comments
It’s not changing the licensing laws at all. Said laws already allow pubs to open to 11.15pm or later on a Sunday should they apply for a licence.
I am simply saying that the idea that they are “changing licensing laws” is rubbish.
They aren’t. Said laws already allow them to open until 11.15pm. They are simply granting an automatic exemption to those whose existing licenses fall short.
For some reason, lots of people in the press think pubs have to shut by law at 11pm (10.30pm Sunday).
That hasn’t been the law for sixteen years.