I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
The decision is by Lord Reed who is, of course, both a Scot and the President of the Court. Amongst the judges who concur in his decision is one of his Deputy Presidents, Lord Hodge, another Scot and a rather brilliant one at that.
To a certain extent Malcolm you are right. What this decision confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty, is not in the process of acquiring such sovereignty and that the scope of both its powers and that of the Scottish government are fixed by the Scotland Act as amended. Any who were deluded enough to pretend otherwise should be so no longer.
The irony of course being that if Scotland hadn't been too frit to vote Yes in 2014 then Lord Reed and Lord Hodge might be presiding over a Supreme Court of Scotland right now.
The issue for malcolm is that Scots voted No last time so Scotland isn't an actual independent country as a result of that vote. The people making the ruling isn't the issue.
We were not frit, we were British and proud of it.
I'm confused, some of the proud English natio..er..patriots on here keep referring to Scots as bottlers because of the 2014 vote. Who are they referring to?
In any case I'd be wary of assuming the 55% were all clones of your good self.
Or indeed that the 45% all thought things through nearly as thoroughly as yourself.
Anyone care to have a go at what disqualifies one from owning a Premiership Club?
Asking for a friend
Technically the football club hasn't been taken over by Saudi Arabia (for that is against Fifa rules). It's been taken over by Saudi's sovereign / investment fund...
Now if they could just sack Steve Bruce and get someone who can work out how to win a few games before January's transfer window opens.
Utterly disgusting to have the Saudis declared 'fit and proper'. 🤮
But then City has the Qataris and they're not much better.
Money is always fit and proper. Its not the money's fault it belongs to shady groups.
Money is an entity. Money deserves rights.
Human rights for money! Anyone transferring money should be guilty of trafficking! Anyone destroying money should be guilty of murder (yes, you, Bull Drummond and Jimmy Cauty!) Anyone losing money down the side of the sofa should be guilty of wilful abandonment...
Anyone care to have a go at what disqualifies one from owning a Premiership Club?
Asking for a friend
Technically the football club hasn't been taken over by Saudi Arabia (for that is against Fifa rules). It's been taken over by Saudi's sovereign / investment fund...
Now if they could just sack Steve Bruce and get someone who can work out how to win a few games before January's transfer window opens.
Just like Gazprom has absolutely nothing to do with the Russian government or Putin....
Utterly disgusting to have the Saudis declared 'fit and proper'. 🤮
But then City has the Qataris and they're not much better.
Money is always fit and proper. Its not the money's fault it belongs to shady groups.
Money is an entity. Money deserves rights.
Human rights for money! Anyone transferring money should be guilty of trafficking! Anyone destroying money should be guilty of murder (yes, you, Bull Drummond and Jimmy Cauty!) Anyone losing money down the side of the sofa should be guilty of wilful abandonment...
What about losing it on the outcome of a thursday night by-election?
Was in the office Monday this week - place was almost deserted. More people today but still not busy. Tbh I love all the facilities but none of the people a bit.
There was no fuel shortage, it had nothing to do with "Brexit", it was just panic buying
"Throughout the petrol supply crisis, deliveries to filling stations barely fell as massive levels of panic buying were the leading cause of fuel shortages, i analysis of fuel data reveals."
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Not very bright.
Run that one past me again.
We have two long running stories in the Gem and the Magnet, by Martin Clifford and Frank Richards respectively. Orwell thinks each name hides a team of dozens of writers. In fact every word of both stories was written by the same bloke, Charles Hamilton.
Got it. Thanks. But from Googling I see that Charles Hamilton is in the Guinness Book of Records as the most prolific writer in history, so perhaps Orwell could be forgiven for assuming that this vast output was the work of many hands writing under the same in-house pseudonyms.
Golly. 100m words, equivalent to 1200 average length novels.
Any of it still read today?
I reread 'Bunter and the Phantom of the Towers' within the last 5 years. Unlike a fair amount of stuff I read as a child it is so indescribably awful I have no idea why I loved it so much at the age of about 10.
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
Under the Scotland Act a provision is not law if it is outside their competence, and this is the case if it 'relates to' reserved matters. It is not contested that the Union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter.
The question is whether a Scottish Act for an advisory referendum on the Union of the Kingdoms is something which 'relates to' the Union of the Kingdoms.
Depending on who is paying you a series of eminent silks will be found to say 'Yes it does' and a long robed queue will form to say 'No it doesn't.'
It won't detain the SC long. The answer is 'Yes it does'. The obvious answer is also the correct one.
I have no dog in the fight; except that I support the Union of the Kingdoms and believe that if the Scottish parliament were so daft as to start on this it would do the union no harm.
If it’s ultra vires for the Scottish government to do anything with regard to reserved matters under the Scotland Act, how was it legal for them to propose and consult on all the various amendments to the Scotland Act that have granted Scotland more powers since 1999?
Anyone care to have a go at what disqualifies one from owning a Premiership Club?
Asking for a friend
Technically the football club hasn't been taken over by Saudi Arabia (for that is against Fifa rules). It's been taken over by Saudi's sovereign / investment fund...
Now if they could just sack Steve Bruce and get someone who can work out how to win a few games before January's transfer window opens.
Also impossible not to feel a little glee at the reactions, right now, in the board rooms of Barca and Real. They dominated global football for many years, by "bending" the rules on loans and subsidies, and buying up all the best players. They can't really complain now when it is done to them, in return
There was no fuel shortage, it had nothing to do with "Brexit", it was just panic buying
"Throughout the petrol supply crisis, deliveries to filling stations barely fell as massive levels of panic buying were the leading cause of fuel shortages, i analysis of fuel data reveals."
As a conspiracy theorist on this, i think it is possible BP had too much fuel stock and needed to move it fast. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Also, the hauliers who wanted the government to allow cheap drivers from the EU, once again. There are accusations they leaked the initial "panicky" news, deliberately
There was no fuel shortage, it had nothing to do with "Brexit", it was just panic buying
"Throughout the petrol supply crisis, deliveries to filling stations barely fell as massive levels of panic buying were the leading cause of fuel shortages, i analysis of fuel data reveals."
As a conspiracy theorist on this, i think it is possible BP had too much fuel stock and needed to move it fast. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Also, the hauliers who wanted the government to allow cheap drivers from the EU, once again. There are accusations they leaked the initial "panicky" news, deliberately
Getting rid of the old crap, so we have to buy E10
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
The decision is by Lord Reed who is, of course, both a Scot and the President of the Court. Amongst the judges who concur in his decision is one of his Deputy Presidents, Lord Hodge, another Scot and a rather brilliant one at that.
To a certain extent Malcolm you are right. What this decision confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty, is not in the process of acquiring such sovereignty and that the scope of both its powers and that of the Scottish government are fixed by the Scotland Act as amended. Any who were deluded enough to pretend otherwise should be so no longer.
The irony of course being that if Scotland hadn't been too frit to vote Yes in 2014 then Lord Reed and Lord Hodge might be presiding over a Supreme Court of Scotland right now.
The issue for malcolm is that Scots voted No last time so Scotland isn't an actual independent country as a result of that vote. The people making the ruling isn't the issue.
We were not frit, we were British and proud of it.
I'm confused, some of the proud English natio..er..patriots on here keep referring to Scots as bottlers because of the 2014 vote. Who are they referring to?
In any case I'd be wary of assuming the 55% were all clones of your good self.
Or indeed that the 45% all thought things through nearly as thoroughly as yourself.
I'm not speaking on behalf of them though. Couldn't anyway since it's now bigger than 45% and there's been quite a lot of churn between no and yes.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
The decision is by Lord Reed who is, of course, both a Scot and the President of the Court. Amongst the judges who concur in his decision is one of his Deputy Presidents, Lord Hodge, another Scot and a rather brilliant one at that.
To a certain extent Malcolm you are right. What this decision confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty, is not in the process of acquiring such sovereignty and that the scope of both its powers and that of the Scottish government are fixed by the Scotland Act as amended. Any who were deluded enough to pretend otherwise should be so no longer.
The irony of course being that if Scotland hadn't been too frit to vote Yes in 2014 then Lord Reed and Lord Hodge might be presiding over a Supreme Court of Scotland right now.
The issue for malcolm is that Scots voted No last time so Scotland isn't an actual independent country as a result of that vote. The people making the ruling isn't the issue.
We were not frit, we were British and proud of it.
I'm confused, some of the proud English natio..er..patriots on here keep referring to Scots as bottlers because of the 2014 vote. Who are they referring to?
In any case I'd be wary of assuming the 55% were all clones of your good self.
Or indeed that the 45% all thought things through nearly as thoroughly as yourself.
I'm not speaking on behalf of them though. Couldn't anyway since it's now bigger than 45% and there's been quite a lot of churn between no and yes.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
Ok, what totally cringey, cock crinkling, embarrassing moment popped into the Gover's head here? Perhaps when he expertly forecast that Scotland would vote for Brexit? Or when his dad said he was speaking a load of shite by suggesting the EU closed down his fish processing business?
The Conservative party has suspended a councillor and is investigating allegations that he has been a secret supporter of a far-right organisation.
Tim Wills, a borough councillor in Worthing, West Sussex, is alleged to have been a supporter of Patriotic Alternative (PA), a racial nationalist group that seeks the removal of ethnic minorities from the UK.
In discussions on a PA channel of the social media app Telegram, he is alleged to have called for the promotion of conspiracy theories such as “white genocide” and urged the group to “infiltrate and influence those in power”.
Ok, what totally cringey, cock crinkling, embarrassing moment popped into the Gover's head here? Perhaps when he expertly forecast that Scotland would vote for Brexit? Or when his dad said he was speaking a load of shite by suggesting the EU closed down his fish processing business?
Looks like a photoshop, Gove's simply been pasted in there.
The Conservative party has suspended a councillor and is investigating allegations that he has been a secret supporter of a far-right organisation.
Tim Wills, a borough councillor in Worthing, West Sussex, is alleged to have been a supporter of Patriotic Alternative (PA), a racial nationalist group that seeks the removal of ethnic minorities from the UK.
In discussions on a PA channel of the social media app Telegram, he is alleged to have called for the promotion of conspiracy theories such as “white genocide” and urged the group to “infiltrate and influence those in power”.
Blimey that's the third time in 24 hours - when will he learn?!
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
The Conservative party has suspended a councillor and is investigating allegations that he has been a secret supporter of a far-right organisation.
Tim Wills, a borough councillor in Worthing, West Sussex, is alleged to have been a supporter of Patriotic Alternative (PA), a racial nationalist group that seeks the removal of ethnic minorities from the UK.
In discussions on a PA channel of the social media app Telegram, he is alleged to have called for the promotion of conspiracy theories such as “white genocide” and urged the group to “infiltrate and influence those in power”.
At least there was no secret about at least one of the far-right organisations to which he belonged.
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
Comparing cases without looking at testing rates is stupid.
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
Comparing cases without looking at testing rates is stupid.
Good for those that want to engage in point-scoring.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
The Conservative party has suspended a councillor and is investigating allegations that he has been a secret supporter of a far-right organisation.
Tim Wills, a borough councillor in Worthing, West Sussex, is alleged to have been a supporter of Patriotic Alternative (PA), a racial nationalist group that seeks the removal of ethnic minorities from the UK.
In discussions on a PA channel of the social media app Telegram, he is alleged to have called for the promotion of conspiracy theories such as “white genocide” and urged the group to “infiltrate and influence those in power”.
At least there was no secret about at least one of the far-right organisations to which he belonged.
We don't call it a thousand year Tory reich for nothing.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Obviously not, but here's a pretty good also ran
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
It's not exactly David Aaronovitch or Jolyon Maugham.
It is clearly the scribblings of a halfwit, to be frank
Agreed.
I am two minutes away from gin time, so please ignore any further thoughts I choose to share with the class.
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
Comparing cases without looking at testing rates is stupid.
But not only rates but accessibility and how tests are targeted. For example Germany may have a lower overall testing rate, but they’ve set up free no-appointment test points in many town centre locations, which may well be more useful than our routine testing of cohorts of pupils in schools.
No-one was mentioning testing rates when many European countries were finding more new cases than we were back in November 2020. It only seems to be raised when our new case rates are worse.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
There's nothing odd about it. Look at the attitudes of remainers.
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
Comparing cases without looking at testing rates is stupid.
But not only rates but accessibility and how tests are targeted. For example Germany may have a lower overall testing rate, but they’ve set up free no-appointment test points in many town centre locations, which may well be more useful than our routine testing of cohorts of pupils in schools.
No-one was mentioning testing rates when many European countries were finding more new cases than we were back in November 2020. It only seems to be raised when our new case rates are worse.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Obviously not, but here's a pretty good also ran
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Obviously not, but here's a pretty good also ran
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
It's not exactly David Aaronovitch or Jolyon Maugham.
It is clearly the scribblings of a halfwit, to be frank
Agreed.
I am two minutes away from gin time, so please ignore any further thoughts I choose to share with the class.
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
What's the source of this quotation?
And how lifted out of lockdown are the other nations?
There's no legal restrictions in the UK anymore and haven't been for three months. How many other countries can say the same? I genuinely don't know.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
I follow and am followed by some pretty influential Nats on Twitter, such as Nicholson, Smyth, Colquhoun, Greer, Biagi, and of course Alex Salmond, we occasionally reply to each others posts, and they occasionally retweet me when I post polls.
I have definitely noticed a lot of of Nat on Nat bitterness from activists/supporters over the last 18 months or so that is positively MalcolmGesque.
'You're a Tory, no you're a Tory you Alba bellend, you're doing your best at stopping Indyref2, Sturgeon doesn't want Indyref2, she cares more about letting blokes use women's toilets.'
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
There's nothing odd about it. Look at the attitudes of remainers.
There is a definite echo....
To be fair to TUD - and Nats - and indeed Remainers, it must be very hard to have a much-valued political identity denied, or taken away. If indyref had gone YES I can imagine we'd have very depressed NO-voters on here. Sad either way
My takeaway from the last ten years of turmoil is NO MORE BLOODY REFERENDUMS. Certainly on constitutional matters. They are bitterly divisive. We have an ancient parliament, much revered around the world, through which we express our democratic rights. It has served us pretty well for 800 years.
Let it go back to doing that, now it has all its powers restored from Brussels. Enough turbulence and bile.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
Same as trading with any market anywhere in the world. Want access for your products? You have to be compliant with their laws.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
Imagine there's only one currency. It isn't hard to do. No need for hedging or conversion. No FX desks too. Imagine all the traders doing something more worthwhile, you oo oo oo oo, you may say I'm a ...
Interesting question as to whether the single currency boosted trade and wealth creation in the EZ. If it didn't I see little point in it unless one believes it was a devious tool to advance a Federal Europe.
Replace Federal Europe with German exports and I think you're closer to the mark.
Yes, I've heard that theory a few times. A tool by which the mighty D could prosper via a permanently underpriced (for them) currency. Although apparently (Leon says) they didn't want it, the French did. So this boon to German exports would be a consequence of the Euro rather than its purpose. I'd say if the Euro wasn't done for streamlining trade & finance reasons, ie to make the Single Market really swing, it most likely was done for idealistic "no more war" binding nations together reasons. Or a mixture of the two.
That is mostly true. The question is whether Germany just got lucky with the low rate at which they shared the DM, or whether they saw the opportunity, and the others didn't realise, in their eagerness to have the Bundesbank on board
The motives for the euro were definitely idealistic - another step to a united Europe - but as with so many of these steps, it was botched, quite badly. Greece, for one, is permanently damaged as a result
But Greece wasn't the Euro's fault. It was the Euro being abused and acting in self-defence.
It was both. You need to read more history around the euro's creation. Like so many europhiles you're actually a little ignorant about the EU. However, I guess eurosceptics are cranky obsessives so they tend to know more..
ANYWAY it was well known that Greece was fudging the books to get into the euro but it was overlooked in the name of Ever Closer Union and the brilliant momentum of the EU, with so many members of its new currency!
The big countries also knew that EMU was a flawed and dangerous concept without actual total fiscal union to accompany it, but they carried on. Again because of Federalist idealism. The Project.
But eurosceptics trot out braindead absurdities such as "joining at the wrong rate" and "locking in competitive disadvantage". This is shallow Times Leader bollox in lieu of proper first principles thinking.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
Once we're independent I promise not to bleat endlessly about what's going on in rump UK or speculate continually about what that foreign country thinks about us. I feel that would betray a certain insecurity.
Utterly disgusting to have the Saudis declared 'fit and proper'. 🤮
But then City has the Qataris and they're not much better.
I think the Saudis are a fair bit worse than the Qataris.
Qatar has not organized for journalists to be murdered in foreign countries. Qatar has not funded Wahabi mosques in foreign countries. Qatar allows alcohol in hotels. (Well, that's important to me.) Qatar has an actual art gallery, which doesn't just show Islamic art. There are even paintings of women in there (albeit not nude), so your average Qatari male will understand what a woman looks like under a burqa. Qatar has a swimming pool at the their airport.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
Same as trading with any market anywhere in the world. Want access for your products? You have to be compliant with their laws.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
Imagine there's only one currency. It isn't hard to do. No need for hedging or conversion. No FX desks too. Imagine all the traders doing something more worthwhile, you oo oo oo oo, you may say I'm a ...
Interesting question as to whether the single currency boosted trade and wealth creation in the EZ. If it didn't I see little point in it unless one believes it was a devious tool to advance a Federal Europe.
Replace Federal Europe with German exports and I think you're closer to the mark.
Yes, I've heard that theory a few times. A tool by which the mighty D could prosper via a permanently underpriced (for them) currency. Although apparently (Leon says) they didn't want it, the French did. So this boon to German exports would be a consequence of the Euro rather than its purpose. I'd say if the Euro wasn't done for streamlining trade & finance reasons, ie to make the Single Market really swing, it most likely was done for idealistic "no more war" binding nations together reasons. Or a mixture of the two.
That is mostly true. The question is whether Germany just got lucky with the low rate at which they shared the DM, or whether they saw the opportunity, and the others didn't realise, in their eagerness to have the Bundesbank on board
The motives for the euro were definitely idealistic - another step to a united Europe - but as with so many of these steps, it was botched, quite badly. Greece, for one, is permanently damaged as a result
But Greece wasn't the Euro's fault. It was the Euro being abused and acting in self-defence.
It was both. You need to read more history around the euro's creation. Like so many europhiles you're actually a little ignorant about the EU. However, I guess eurosceptics are cranky obsessives so they tend to know more..
ANYWAY it was well known that Greece was fudging the books to get into the euro but it was overlooked in the name of Ever Closer Union and the brilliant momentum of the EU, with so many members of its new currency!
The big countries also knew that EMU was a flawed and dangerous concept without actual total fiscal union to accompany it, but they carried on. Again because of Federalist idealism. The Project.
But eurosceptics trot out braindead absurdities such as "joining at the wrong rate" and "locking in competitive disadvantage". This is shallow Times Leader bollox in lieu of proper first principles thinking.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
There's nothing odd about it. Look at the attitudes of remainers.
There is a definite echo....
To be fair to TUD - and Nats - and indeed Remainers, it must be very hard to have a much-valued political identity denied, or taken away. If indyref had gone YES I can imagine we'd have very depressed NO-voters on here. Sad either way
My takeaway from the last ten years of turmoil is NO MORE BLOODY REFERENDUMS. Certainly on constitutional matters. They are bitterly divisive. We have an ancient parliament, much revered around the world, through which we express our democratic rights. It has served us pretty well for 800 years.
Let it go back to doing that, now it has all its powers restored from Brussels. Enough turbulence and bile.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
Once we're independent I promise not to bleat endlessly about what's going on in rump UK or speculate continually about what that foreign country thinks about us. I feel that would betray a certain insecurity.
Scottish Nationalism is an inferiority complex turned into a political party. Discuss
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
What's the source of this quotation?
And how lifted out of lockdown are the other nations?
There's no legal restrictions in the UK anymore and haven't been for three months. How many other countries can say the same? I genuinely don't know.
Well there are no national restrictions in the US, but there are a hell of a lot of local ones.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Obviously not, but here's a pretty good also ran
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
It's not exactly David Aaronovitch or Jolyon Maugham.
It is clearly the scribblings of a halfwit, to be frank
Agreed.
I am two minutes away from gin time, so please ignore any further thoughts I choose to share with the class.
Ok, what totally cringey, cock crinkling, embarrassing moment popped into the Gover's head here? Perhaps when he expertly forecast that Scotland would vote for Brexit? Or when his dad said he was speaking a load of shite by suggesting the EU closed down his fish processing business?
Worried about him. Running a VERY high colour. Noticed this on a clip of him from the conference.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
Same as trading with any market anywhere in the world. Want access for your products? You have to be compliant with their laws.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
Imagine there's only one currency. It isn't hard to do. No need for hedging or conversion. No FX desks too. Imagine all the traders doing something more worthwhile, you oo oo oo oo, you may say I'm a ...
Interesting question as to whether the single currency boosted trade and wealth creation in the EZ. If it didn't I see little point in it unless one believes it was a devious tool to advance a Federal Europe.
Replace Federal Europe with German exports and I think you're closer to the mark.
Yes, I've heard that theory a few times. A tool by which the mighty D could prosper via a permanently underpriced (for them) currency. Although apparently (Leon says) they didn't want it, the French did. So this boon to German exports would be a consequence of the Euro rather than its purpose. I'd say if the Euro wasn't done for streamlining trade & finance reasons, ie to make the Single Market really swing, it most likely was done for idealistic "no more war" binding nations together reasons. Or a mixture of the two.
That is mostly true. The question is whether Germany just got lucky with the low rate at which they shared the DM, or whether they saw the opportunity, and the others didn't realise, in their eagerness to have the Bundesbank on board
The motives for the euro were definitely idealistic - another step to a united Europe - but as with so many of these steps, it was botched, quite badly. Greece, for one, is permanently damaged as a result
But Greece wasn't the Euro's fault. It was the Euro being abused and acting in self-defence.
It was both. You need to read more history around the euro's creation. Like so many europhiles you're actually a little ignorant about the EU. However, I guess eurosceptics are cranky obsessives so they tend to know more..
ANYWAY it was well known that Greece was fudging the books to get into the euro but it was overlooked in the name of Ever Closer Union and the brilliant momentum of the EU, with so many members of its new currency!
The big countries also knew that EMU was a flawed and dangerous concept without actual total fiscal union to accompany it, but they carried on. Again because of Federalist idealism. The Project.
But eurosceptics trot out braindead absurdities such as "joining at the wrong rate" and "locking in competitive disadvantage". This is shallow Times Leader bollox in lieu of proper first principles thinking.
'This"? Genuine question: are you referring to Leon's post, or the article link he posted? The latter is a Springer academic journal article, so presumably peer-reviewed by an editorial board that meets Springer's standards for editorial review.
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
Comparing cases without looking at testing rates is stupid.
But not only rates but accessibility and how tests are targeted. For example Germany may have a lower overall testing rate, but they’ve set up free no-appointment test points in many town centre locations, which may well be more useful than our routine testing of cohorts of pupils in schools.
No-one was mentioning testing rates when many European countries were finding more new cases than we were back in November 2020. It only seems to be raised when our new case rates are worse.
Testing rates has been discussed throughout.
The UK is has tons of drop in centres for testing, no appointments required. Most of them are pretty empty - we have a vast capacity at the moment.
When I walk round to the local one to get some PCR tests (if the kids have been in contact with a friend who has COVID, the whole family does a PCR) they are quite glad to see someone
There is surge testing as well, in various hotspots.
All of which is done in addition to all the testing in the schools.
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
Comparing cases without looking at testing rates is stupid.
But not only rates but accessibility and how tests are targeted. For example Germany may have a lower overall testing rate, but they’ve set up free no-appointment test points in many town centre locations, which may well be more useful than our routine testing of cohorts of pupils in schools.
No-one was mentioning testing rates when many European countries were finding more new cases than we were back in November 2020. It only seems to be raised when our new case rates are worse.
Testing rates has been discussed throughout.
The UK is has tons of drop in centres for testing, no appointments required. Most of them are pretty empty - we have a vast capacity at the moment.
When I walk round to the local one to get some PCR tests (if the kids have been in contact with a friend who has COVID, the whole family does a PCR) they are quite glad to see someone
There is surge testing as well, in various hotspots.
All of which is done in addition to all the testing in the schools.
Ok, what totally cringey, cock crinkling, embarrassing moment popped into the Gover's head here? Perhaps when he expertly forecast that Scotland would vote for Brexit? Or when his dad said he was speaking a load of shite by suggesting the EU closed down his fish processing business?
Worried about him. Running a VERY high colour. Noticed this on a clip of him from the conference.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Christ, that is awful.
Yes. It's a read and try and forget piece of work. One hopes it was rapped out rather than slaved over. Interesting insight though. Or, let's not get carried away, not totally uninteresting.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
There's nothing odd about it. Look at the attitudes of remainers.
There is a definite echo....
To be fair to TUD - and Nats - and indeed Remainers, it must be very hard to have a much-valued political identity denied, or taken away. If indyref had gone YES I can imagine we'd have very depressed NO-voters on here. Sad either way
My takeaway from the last ten years of turmoil is NO MORE BLOODY REFERENDUMS. Certainly on constitutional matters. They are bitterly divisive. We have an ancient parliament, much revered around the world, through which we express our democratic rights. It has served us pretty well for 800 years.
Let it go back to doing that, now it has all its powers restored from Brussels. Enough turbulence and bile.
Served who pretty well for 800 years?
You and all of your ancestors. Me and all of my ancestors. Leon and all of his ancestors. We're all here to comment so the past can't have been that bad.
The past by definition has served us all well. We may have nasty stories to tell, or we may have nasty secrets - I'm sure if you dig back far enough we all have both.
Probably best to fix our eyes on the future, and that's not about leave/remain.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
I follow and am followed by some pretty influential Nats on Twitter, such as Nicholson, Smyth, Colquhoun, Greer, Biagi, and of course Alex Salmond, we occasionally reply to each others posts, and they occasionally retweet me when I post polls.
I have definitely noticed a lot of of Nat on Nat bitterness from activists/supporters over the last 18 months or so that is positively MalcolmGesque.
'You're a Tory, no you're a Tory you Alba bellend, you're doing your best at stopping Indyref2, Sturgeon doesn't want Indyref2, she cares more about letting blokes use women's toilets.'
It is quite the eye opener.
Yep. The way I see it, the Nats - of all stripes - got very excited by the Holyrood election, expecting an absolute walkover (especially with Alba on board). Then - by some magic that was invisible to me - they expected to exert "moral pressure" on the Tory government to give them a vote. I always thought this was utterly fanciful, why would Boris do that? He has a big majority. He can just tell them to do one, and the polls show Scots are evenly split, and most don't want a vote now anyway
So along came the election, the Nats did well, but maybe not quite as well as they hoped (Alba in particular cratered).
And now they have the dawning realisation that there is no obvious route to a new vote, and the indy polls have actually worsened. So this is it. Status quo for the next five, ten, fifteen years? More?
Meanwhile Brexit, now done, makes it much harder for indy, as a concept.
The Nats are stuck. And the brighter ones sense it. Hence, the first signs of blood letting within the movement
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
Comparing cases without looking at testing rates is stupid.
Good for those that want to engage in point-scoring.
The only sane international comparison is the one done by the Economist
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
There's nothing odd about it. Look at the attitudes of remainers.
There is a definite echo....
To be fair to TUD - and Nats - and indeed Remainers, it must be very hard to have a much-valued political identity denied, or taken away. If indyref had gone YES I can imagine we'd have very depressed NO-voters on here. Sad either way
My takeaway from the last ten years of turmoil is NO MORE BLOODY REFERENDUMS. Certainly on constitutional matters. They are bitterly divisive. We have an ancient parliament, much revered around the world, through which we express our democratic rights. It has served us pretty well for 800 years.
Let it go back to doing that, now it has all its powers restored from Brussels. Enough turbulence and bile.
800?
More like 100 in its current form, and 313 for the Scots.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Christ, that is awful.
Yes. It's a read and try and forget piece of work. One hopes it was rapped out rather than slaved over. Interesting insight though. Or, let's not get carried away, not totally uninteresting.
It's probably Alan Partridge's favourite poem. It's like the Daily Mail in verse form. A torrent of ignorance in rhyming couplets. I actually really love England but this poem makes me want to nuke it.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
There's nothing odd about it. Look at the attitudes of remainers.
There is a definite echo....
To be fair to TUD - and Nats - and indeed Remainers, it must be very hard to have a much-valued political identity denied, or taken away. If indyref had gone YES I can imagine we'd have very depressed NO-voters on here. Sad either way
My takeaway from the last ten years of turmoil is NO MORE BLOODY REFERENDUMS. Certainly on constitutional matters. They are bitterly divisive. We have an ancient parliament, much revered around the world, through which we express our democratic rights. It has served us pretty well for 800 years.
Let it go back to doing that, now it has all its powers restored from Brussels. Enough turbulence and bile.
Served who pretty well for 800 years?
You and all of your ancestors. Me and all of my ancestors. Leon and all of his ancestors. We're all here to comment so the past can't have been that bad.
The past by definition has served us all well. We may have nasty stories to tell, or we may have nasty secrets - I'm sure if you dig back far enough we all have both.
Probably best to fix our eyes on the future, and that's not about leave/remain.
Everything that ever happened is right.. and the proof is Leon exists?
The Panglossian demonstration, rather, of Leon's corporeality.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
Once we're independent I promise not to bleat endlessly about what's going on in rump UK or speculate continually about what that foreign country thinks about us. I feel that would betray a certain insecurity.
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
Comparing cases without looking at testing rates is stupid.
But not only rates but accessibility and how tests are targeted. For example Germany may have a lower overall testing rate, but they’ve set up free no-appointment test points in many town centre locations, which may well be more useful than our routine testing of cohorts of pupils in schools.
No-one was mentioning testing rates when many European countries were finding more new cases than we were back in November 2020. It only seems to be raised when our new case rates are worse.
Testing rates has been discussed throughout.
The UK is has tons of drop in centres for testing, no appointments required. Most of them are pretty empty - we have a vast capacity at the moment.
When I walk round to the local one to get some PCR tests (if the kids have been in contact with a friend who has COVID, the whole family does a PCR) they are quite glad to see someone
There is surge testing as well, in various hotspots.
All of which is done in addition to all the testing in the schools.
To some the UK can't do anything right.
Well, there is an argument that the government is testing to much.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Greenpeace loses North Sea Vorlich field legal challenge
Environmental group Greenpeace has lost its case against the UK government over a North Sea oil field permit.
Permission to drill the Vorlich site off Aberdeen was given to BP in 2018.
Greenpeace argued in Scotland's highest civil court there had been "a myriad of failures in the public consultation" and the permit did not consider the climate impacts of burning fossil fuel.
The Court of Session ruling means operations will continue at the field. Greenpeace plans to appeal.
The UK government welcomed the outcome.
It follows a two-day hearing into the case last month.
Production from the development started in November after BP was granted approval by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) in 2018.
Greenpeace oilfield challenge 'opportunistic'
Greenpeace said it was the first time an offshore oil permit had ever been challenged in court and that if it had won, the case would have had huge ramifications for other sites, such as the planned Cambo field off Shetland.
Ruth Crawford QC for Greenpeace said UK Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng had been "deprived" of information about the environmental impact of the development.
Ms Crawford said Greenpeace wanted proper public participation in important developments such as the Vorlich oilfield.
Roddy Dunlop QC, representing the UK government, said the challenges advanced by Greenpeace were "largely procedural and opportunistic".
Jim Cormack, representing oil firms BP and Ithaca, had previously told hearing that the challenge was "highly significant" and if the original decision was overturned, production from the field would have to stop until new consent could be obtained.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
There's nothing odd about it. Look at the attitudes of remainers.
There is a definite echo....
To be fair to TUD - and Nats - and indeed Remainers, it must be very hard to have a much-valued political identity denied, or taken away. If indyref had gone YES I can imagine we'd have very depressed NO-voters on here. Sad either way
My takeaway from the last ten years of turmoil is NO MORE BLOODY REFERENDUMS. Certainly on constitutional matters. They are bitterly divisive. We have an ancient parliament, much revered around the world, through which we express our democratic rights. It has served us pretty well for 800 years.
Let it go back to doing that, now it has all its powers restored from Brussels. Enough turbulence and bile.
800?
More like 100 in its current form, and 313 for the Scots.
806 years, actually
"The Parliament of England was the legislature of the Kingdom of England. The first English Parliament was convened in 1215, with the creation and signing of the Magna Carta, which established the rights of barons (wealthy landowners) to serve as consultants to the king on governmental matters in his Great Council."
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
There's nothing odd about it. Look at the attitudes of remainers.
There is a definite echo....
To be fair to TUD - and Nats - and indeed Remainers, it must be very hard to have a much-valued political identity denied, or taken away. If indyref had gone YES I can imagine we'd have very depressed NO-voters on here. Sad either way
My takeaway from the last ten years of turmoil is NO MORE BLOODY REFERENDUMS. Certainly on constitutional matters. They are bitterly divisive. We have an ancient parliament, much revered around the world, through which we express our democratic rights. It has served us pretty well for 800 years.
Let it go back to doing that, now it has all its powers restored from Brussels. Enough turbulence and bile.
Served who pretty well for 800 years?
You and all of your ancestors. Me and all of my ancestors. Leon and all of his ancestors. We're all here to comment so the past can't have been that bad.
The past by definition has served us all well. We may have nasty stories to tell, or we may have nasty secrets - I'm sure if you dig back far enough we all have both.
Probably best to fix our eyes on the future, and that's not about leave/remain.
Thanks anyway, but I'll be the judge of that. Not a fan of ahistorical sentimentalising at the best of times.
Greenpeace loses North Sea Vorlich field legal challenge
Environmental group Greenpeace has lost its case against the UK government over a North Sea oil field permit.
Permission to drill the Vorlich site off Aberdeen was given to BP in 2018.
Greenpeace argued in Scotland's highest civil court there had been "a myriad of failures in the public consultation" and the permit did not consider the climate impacts of burning fossil fuel.
The Court of Session ruling means operations will continue at the field. Greenpeace plans to appeal.
The UK government welcomed the outcome.
It follows a two-day hearing into the case last month.
Production from the development started in November after BP was granted approval by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) in 2018.
Greenpeace oilfield challenge 'opportunistic'
Greenpeace said it was the first time an offshore oil permit had ever been challenged in court and that if it had won, the case would have had huge ramifications for other sites, such as the planned Cambo field off Shetland.
Ruth Crawford QC for Greenpeace said UK Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng had been "deprived" of information about the environmental impact of the development.
Ms Crawford said Greenpeace wanted proper public participation in important developments such as the Vorlich oilfield.
Roddy Dunlop QC, representing the UK government, said the challenges advanced by Greenpeace were "largely procedural and opportunistic".
Jim Cormack, representing oil firms BP and Ithaca, had previously told hearing that the challenge was "highly significant" and if the original decision was overturned, production from the field would have to stop until new consent could be obtained.
If Greenpeace can appeal this ruling, does that mean the government can appeal the Swampy ruling a couple of days back?
(Yes, I know, criminal vs civil law, but it would be funny to suggest it and watch their little heads explode.)
Ok, what totally cringey, cock crinkling, embarrassing moment popped into the Gover's head here? Perhaps when he expertly forecast that Scotland would vote for Brexit? Or when his dad said he was speaking a load of shite by suggesting the EU closed down his fish processing business?
Worried about him. Running a VERY high colour. Noticed this on a clip of him from the conference.
Come on, it's obviously a photoshop.
I mean I saw him on the telly, Rob, and his rather sweet face was that colour.
There was even churn in your head, when you went from "absolutely happy to leave the EU by voting YES" to "how dare they drag us out of the EU by voting Leave", in the space of just two years
It's fitting that someone who always was and always will be a tourist in Scotland can barely fill a postcard with any real insight on the place.
You seem oddly bitter
There's nothing odd about it. Look at the attitudes of remainers.
There is a definite echo....
To be fair to TUD - and Nats - and indeed Remainers, it must be very hard to have a much-valued political identity denied, or taken away. If indyref had gone YES I can imagine we'd have very depressed NO-voters on here. Sad either way
My takeaway from the last ten years of turmoil is NO MORE BLOODY REFERENDUMS. Certainly on constitutional matters. They are bitterly divisive. We have an ancient parliament, much revered around the world, through which we express our democratic rights. It has served us pretty well for 800 years.
Let it go back to doing that, now it has all its powers restored from Brussels. Enough turbulence and bile.
Served who pretty well for 800 years?
You and all of your ancestors. Me and all of my ancestors. Leon and all of his ancestors. We're all here to comment so the past can't have been that bad.
The past by definition has served us all well. We may have nasty stories to tell, or we may have nasty secrets - I'm sure if you dig back far enough we all have both.
Probably best to fix our eyes on the future, and that's not about leave/remain.
Everything that ever happened is right.. and the proof is Leon exists?
No.
"We" can't moan so much about everything that has ever happened.
Ok, what totally cringey, cock crinkling, embarrassing moment popped into the Gover's head here? Perhaps when he expertly forecast that Scotland would vote for Brexit? Or when his dad said he was speaking a load of shite by suggesting the EU closed down his fish processing business?
Worried about him. Running a VERY high colour. Noticed this on a clip of him from the conference.
Come on, it's obviously a photoshop.
I mean I saw him on the telly, Rob, and his rather sweet face was that colour.
On this occasion I will come to your aid. I saw it too, and I remember thinking, Crikey, he's very puce
The colour may have been darkened a tad, but not that much
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
Comparing cases without looking at testing rates is stupid.
You need to look at:
- cases - direction of cases - positivity rates - amount of testing
So, the UK has been bouncing along at roughly the same level - low 30,000 number of cases per day - for the last three months. Hospitalisations are falling. And the UK is burning through its unvaccinated.
By contrast, Spain's case numbers zoomed up like the UK's (but eight weeks behind) in June and July, but have now fallen to their lowest level in over a year. Are they doing less testing than the UK? Yes. But their reported case numbers have also fallen 90% since their July peak, and positivity rates rates are lower than in the UK (42 tests per positive result vs 26). So this can't all be testing related.
Simply, Spain (and Italy and Belgium and France) have all had much less severe Delta waves than the UK.
I don't think the explanation here is complex. In fact, I think it's very simple. Europe got lucky. Because they were slow to vaccinate, they managed to have their Delta wave at exactly the time when Pfizer gives maximum protection (and they also got the vaccine to younger people earlier).
Now, we know from the US and Israel that Pfizer's protection wanes faster than either AZ or Moderna (although we don't know if this is dosing related, or something unique to their vaccine). This means that the continent should be concerned about a wave in December/January as that Pfizer protection starts to retreat somewhat.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Obviously not, but here's a pretty good also ran
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
… is now bound in with shame, With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
Same as trading with any market anywhere in the world. Want access for your products? You have to be compliant with their laws.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
Imagine there's only one currency. It isn't hard to do. No need for hedging or conversion. No FX desks too. Imagine all the traders doing something more worthwhile, you oo oo oo oo, you may say I'm a ...
Interesting question as to whether the single currency boosted trade and wealth creation in the EZ. If it didn't I see little point in it unless one believes it was a devious tool to advance a Federal Europe.
Replace Federal Europe with German exports and I think you're closer to the mark.
Yes, I've heard that theory a few times. A tool by which the mighty D could prosper via a permanently underpriced (for them) currency. Although apparently (Leon says) they didn't want it, the French did. So this boon to German exports would be a consequence of the Euro rather than its purpose. I'd say if the Euro wasn't done for streamlining trade & finance reasons, ie to make the Single Market really swing, it most likely was done for idealistic "no more war" binding nations together reasons. Or a mixture of the two.
That is mostly true. The question is whether Germany just got lucky with the low rate at which they shared the DM, or whether they saw the opportunity, and the others didn't realise, in their eagerness to have the Bundesbank on board
The motives for the euro were definitely idealistic - another step to a united Europe - but as with so many of these steps, it was botched, quite badly. Greece, for one, is permanently damaged as a result
But Greece wasn't the Euro's fault. It was the Euro being abused and acting in self-defence.
It was both. You need to read more history around the euro's creation. Like so many europhiles you're actually a little ignorant about the EU. However, I guess eurosceptics are cranky obsessives so they tend to know more..
ANYWAY it was well known that Greece was fudging the books to get into the euro but it was overlooked in the name of Ever Closer Union and the brilliant momentum of the EU, with so many members of its new currency!
The big countries also knew that EMU was a flawed and dangerous concept without actual total fiscal union to accompany it, but they carried on. Again because of Federalist idealism. The Project.
But eurosceptics trot out braindead absurdities such as "joining at the wrong rate" and "locking in competitive disadvantage". This is shallow Times Leader bollox in lieu of proper first principles thinking.
'This"? Genuine question: are you referring to Leon's post, or the article link he posted? The latter is a Springer academic journal article, so presumably peer-reviewed by an editorial board that meets Springer's standards for editorial review.
I'm talking about those 2 mantra phrases. Eg if we joined the Euro tomorrow, what would be the "right" rate? Or the "wrong" rate? We would join at THE rate. The rate as per now. Saying in 10 years time that we joined at the wrong rate and "locked in" this that & the other is like saying Gordon Brown "lost" a packet by selling gold at the bottom of the market. It's not a good take and yet it's one I hear over and over. I think people just trot it out. That's my impression anyway. Haven't read the article. Maybe it'll change my mind. I will read it.
A common perception is that England has navigated its way out of the pandemic more successfully than most through vaccination, or that, at the very least, other countries are in the same boat as us. Yet England has one of the highest burdens of Covid in Europe, measured by the weekly number of new cases per million people, exceeded only by the three Baltic states, Serbia and Romania. England’s case rates are eight to 10 times higher than some of the best performing countries, such as Spain and Portugal.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
Comparing cases without looking at testing rates is stupid.
Good for those that want to engage in point-scoring.
The only sane international comparison is the one done by the Economist
In a strongly-worded initial reaction, the European Commission said the decision on Thursday raised “serious concerns”. It reaffirmed that “EU law has primacy over national law, including constitutional provisions”.
That's the Guardian today on the Poland constitutional case. Just a reminder that those who think the EU is not an emerging state, and those who think everyone else is wonderfully happy with this conflicted and oxymoronic nightmare may be mistaken.
BTW, the SNP are unhappy with the UK having control over the Scottish constitutional settlement, while wanting the EU to 'have primacy over (Scottish) national law, including constitutional provisions'. Fascinating.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
Same as trading with any market anywhere in the world. Want access for your products? You have to be compliant with their laws.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
Imagine there's only one currency. It isn't hard to do. No need for hedging or conversion. No FX desks too. Imagine all the traders doing something more worthwhile, you oo oo oo oo, you may say I'm a ...
Interesting question as to whether the single currency boosted trade and wealth creation in the EZ. If it didn't I see little point in it unless one believes it was a devious tool to advance a Federal Europe.
Replace Federal Europe with German exports and I think you're closer to the mark.
Yes, I've heard that theory a few times. A tool by which the mighty D could prosper via a permanently underpriced (for them) currency. Although apparently (Leon says) they didn't want it, the French did. So this boon to German exports would be a consequence of the Euro rather than its purpose. I'd say if the Euro wasn't done for streamlining trade & finance reasons, ie to make the Single Market really swing, it most likely was done for idealistic "no more war" binding nations together reasons. Or a mixture of the two.
That is mostly true. The question is whether Germany just got lucky with the low rate at which they shared the DM, or whether they saw the opportunity, and the others didn't realise, in their eagerness to have the Bundesbank on board
The motives for the euro were definitely idealistic - another step to a united Europe - but as with so many of these steps, it was botched, quite badly. Greece, for one, is permanently damaged as a result
But Greece wasn't the Euro's fault. It was the Euro being abused and acting in self-defence.
It was both. You need to read more history around the euro's creation. Like so many europhiles you're actually a little ignorant about the EU. However, I guess eurosceptics are cranky obsessives so they tend to know more..
ANYWAY it was well known that Greece was fudging the books to get into the euro but it was overlooked in the name of Ever Closer Union and the brilliant momentum of the EU, with so many members of its new currency!
The big countries also knew that EMU was a flawed and dangerous concept without actual total fiscal union to accompany it, but they carried on. Again because of Federalist idealism. The Project.
But eurosceptics trot out braindead absurdities such as "joining at the wrong rate" and "locking in competitive disadvantage". This is shallow Times Leader bollox in lieu of proper first principles thinking.
'This"? Genuine question: are you referring to Leon's post, or the article link he posted? The latter is a Springer academic journal article, so presumably peer-reviewed by an editorial board that meets Springer's standards for editorial review.
I'm talking about those 2 mantra phrases. Eg if we joined the Euro tomorrow, what would be the "right" rate? Or the "wrong" rate? We would join at THE rate. The rate as per now. Saying in 10 years time that we joined at the wrong rate and "locked in" this that & the other is like saying Gordon Brown "lost" a packet by selling gold at the bottom of the market. It's not a good take and yet it's one I hear over and over. I think people just trot it out. That's my impression anyway. Haven't read the article. Maybe it'll change my mind. I will read it.
Gordon crashed the gold market with his stunt. Selling the gold stock slowly, over a period of time (as central banks are supposed to) would have not crashed the gold market *and* made more money.
Ok, what totally cringey, cock crinkling, embarrassing moment popped into the Gover's head here? Perhaps when he expertly forecast that Scotland would vote for Brexit? Or when his dad said he was speaking a load of shite by suggesting the EU closed down his fish processing business?
Worried about him. Running a VERY high colour. Noticed this on a clip of him from the conference.
Come on, it's obviously a photoshop.
Seems a lot of trouble to photoshop a pic of a tv screen; Gove is a weird, red face Tory either way. Looks legit to me.
Comments
Short version: Money is the root of all evil. So we protect the world by hoarding all of it.
Now if they could just sack Steve Bruce and get someone who can work out how to win a few games before January's transfer window opens.
Human rights for money! Anyone transferring money should be guilty of trafficking! Anyone destroying money should be guilty of murder (yes, you, Bull Drummond and Jimmy Cauty!) Anyone losing money down the side of the sofa should be guilty of wilful abandonment...
Must go and sell some CDO to some widows and orphans to return to my normal state.
Couldn't anyway since it's now bigger than 45% and there's been quite a lot of churn between no and yes.
Still investigating the odd spike in the positivity data
Tim Wills, a borough councillor in Worthing, West Sussex, is alleged to have been a supporter of Patriotic Alternative (PA), a racial nationalist group that seeks the removal of ethnic minorities from the UK.
In discussions on a PA channel of the social media app Telegram, he is alleged to have called for the promotion of conspiracy theories such as “white genocide” and urged the group to “infiltrate and influence those in power”.
Measured by death rates, the situation is not quite as bad. Some countries with weaker health systems and low vaccination coverage among their elderly citizens, such as Bulgaria and Romania, have particularly high death rates. But even so, England is still doing much worse in terms of Covid deaths than our western European and Nordic neighbours. With more than 7,500 reported deaths since 1 June, England’s current death rate (22 deaths per million people in the last two weeks) is more than twice as high as Germany’s (10 deaths per million people) and almost six times as high as Finland’s (four deaths per million people).
No-one was mentioning testing rates when many European countries were finding more new cases than we were back in November 2020. It only seems to be raised when our new case rates are worse.
COVID STATS ALERT The government has lost control of testing? PCRs are getting it wrong? 😟
There's no legal restrictions in the UK anymore and haven't been for three months. How many other countries can say the same? I genuinely don't know.
I have definitely noticed a lot of of Nat on Nat bitterness from activists/supporters over the last 18 months or so that is positively MalcolmGesque.
'You're a Tory, no you're a Tory you Alba bellend, you're doing your best at stopping Indyref2, Sturgeon doesn't want Indyref2, she cares more about letting blokes use women's toilets.'
It is quite the eye opener.
To be fair to TUD - and Nats - and indeed Remainers, it must be very hard to have a much-valued political identity denied, or taken away. If indyref had gone YES I can imagine we'd have very depressed NO-voters on here. Sad either way
My takeaway from the last ten years of turmoil is NO MORE BLOODY REFERENDUMS. Certainly on constitutional matters. They are bitterly divisive. We have an ancient parliament, much revered around the world, through which we express our democratic rights. It has served us pretty well for 800 years.
Let it go back to doing that, now it has all its powers restored from Brussels. Enough turbulence and bile.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1446141604184604673
Qatar has not organized for journalists to be murdered in foreign countries.
Qatar has not funded Wahabi mosques in foreign countries.
Qatar allows alcohol in hotels. (Well, that's important to me.)
Qatar has an actual art gallery, which doesn't just show Islamic art. There are even paintings of women in there (albeit not nude), so your average Qatari male will understand what a woman looks like under a burqa.
Qatar has a swimming pool at the their airport.
When I walk round to the local one to get some PCR tests (if the kids have been in contact with a friend who has COVID, the whole family does a PCR) they are quite glad to see someone
There is surge testing as well, in various hotspots.
All of which is done in addition to all the testing in the schools.
The past by definition has served us all well. We may have nasty stories to tell, or we may have nasty secrets - I'm sure if you dig back far enough we all have both.
Probably best to fix our eyes on the future, and that's not about leave/remain.
They've only gone and rescheduled for next April and replaced Garbage with Johnny Marr.
So along came the election, the Nats did well, but maybe not quite as well as they hoped (Alba in particular cratered).
And now they have the dawning realisation that there is no obvious route to a new vote, and the indy polls have actually worsened. So this is it. Status quo for the next five, ten, fifteen years? More?
Meanwhile Brexit, now done, makes it much harder for indy, as a concept.
The Nats are stuck. And the brighter ones sense it. Hence, the first signs of blood letting within the movement
And now, to the gym. And then gin
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
More like 100 in its current form, and 313 for the Scots.
Then again, Austria....
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-tests-per-thousand-people-smoothed-7-day?tab=table
Greenpeace loses North Sea Vorlich field legal challenge
Environmental group Greenpeace has lost its case against the UK government over a North Sea oil field permit.
Permission to drill the Vorlich site off Aberdeen was given to BP in 2018.
Greenpeace argued in Scotland's highest civil court there had been "a myriad of failures in the public consultation" and the permit did not consider the climate impacts of burning fossil fuel.
The Court of Session ruling means operations will continue at the field. Greenpeace plans to appeal.
The UK government welcomed the outcome.
It follows a two-day hearing into the case last month.
Production from the development started in November after BP was granted approval by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) in 2018.
Greenpeace oilfield challenge 'opportunistic'
Greenpeace said it was the first time an offshore oil permit had ever been challenged in court and that if it had won, the case would have had huge ramifications for other sites, such as the planned Cambo field off Shetland.
Ruth Crawford QC for Greenpeace said UK Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng had been "deprived" of information about the environmental impact of the development.
Ms Crawford said Greenpeace wanted proper public participation in important developments such as the Vorlich oilfield.
Roddy Dunlop QC, representing the UK government, said the challenges advanced by Greenpeace were "largely procedural and opportunistic".
Jim Cormack, representing oil firms BP and Ithaca, had previously told hearing that the challenge was "highly significant" and if the original decision was overturned, production from the field would have to stop until new consent could be obtained.
"The Parliament of England was the legislature of the Kingdom of England. The first English Parliament was convened in 1215, with the creation and signing of the Magna Carta, which established the rights of barons (wealthy landowners) to serve as consultants to the king on governmental matters in his Great Council."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England
If you want the cultural origins, they go back to the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemots of the 6th century. So: 1,500 years!
300 years ago we English graciously allowed you Scots to consensually join in this splendid history. And much fun have we all had, ever since
Not a fan of ahistorical sentimentalising at the best of times.
False PCR positives, you say? How interesting....
(Yes, I know, criminal vs civil law, but it would be funny to suggest it and watch their little heads explode.)
But why reschedule? Covid?
"We" can't moan so much about everything that has ever happened.
Stuff that's happened just "is".
The colour may have been darkened a tad, but not that much
After all, No Time To Die.
You only live twice.
Once when you are born and once when you look death in the face.
- cases
- direction of cases
- positivity rates
- amount of testing
So, the UK has been bouncing along at roughly the same level - low 30,000 number of cases per day - for the last three months. Hospitalisations are falling. And the UK is burning through its unvaccinated.
By contrast, Spain's case numbers zoomed up like the UK's (but eight weeks behind) in June and July, but have now fallen to their lowest level in over a year. Are they doing less testing than the UK? Yes. But their reported case numbers have also fallen 90% since their July peak, and positivity rates rates are lower than in the UK (42 tests per positive result vs 26). So this can't all be testing related.
Simply, Spain (and Italy and Belgium and France) have all had much less severe Delta waves than the UK.
I don't think the explanation here is complex. In fact, I think it's very simple. Europe got lucky. Because they were slow to vaccinate, they managed to have their Delta wave at exactly the time when Pfizer gives maximum protection (and they also got the vaccine to younger people earlier).
Now, we know from the US and Israel that Pfizer's protection wanes faster than either AZ or Moderna (although we don't know if this is dosing related, or something unique to their vaccine). This means that the continent should be concerned about a wave in December/January as that Pfizer protection starts to retreat somewhat.
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Go on....
That's the Guardian today on the Poland constitutional case. Just a reminder that those who think the EU is not an emerging state, and those who think everyone else is wonderfully happy with this conflicted and oxymoronic nightmare may be mistaken.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/07/polish-court-rules-that-eu-laws-incompatible-with-its-constitution
BTW, the SNP are unhappy with the UK having control over the Scottish constitutional settlement, while wanting the EU to 'have primacy over (Scottish) national law, including constitutional provisions'. Fascinating.
https://twitter.com/Sh1rley/status/1445812875067633664?s=20
Flights to Kabul will be heaving, no doubt.