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.
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.
Stuff that's happened just "is".
I thought we were praising our glorious past, not moaning? Wait, does Leon even exist? So confused right now.
Pull yourself together. Not everything is about your @Leon obsession.
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.
You're quite correct in these matters.
Potential sarcasm alert but I ignore that and say cheers thanks. 🙂
So if there was no reduction at all in fuel deliveries to cause our fuel "crisis" and we can pin blame for the initial spark of panic on the corporate interests involved, how much blame should be on the traditional media for their reporting of this, and how left over for the social media warrior remainers who gleefully whipped up the panic as they thought they could blame it on Brexit?
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.
The EU isn't going to kick Poland or Hungary out.
There is the moral argument - that if it did so, it would, in effect be abandoning the substantial liberal groupings in both countries.
There is the EU argument - that the EU Is forever.
There is also the geo-political argument. If either are kicked out, the loss of EU subsidies would cause a massive jolt for either countries economy. Aside from the governments in both cases using that jolt to blame the EU more, what else might happen.
Poland is a net beneficiary of something like 13 billion Euro. Hungary 5 billion. Imagine Russia or China picking up the tab.....
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.
Stuff that's happened just "is".
I thought we were praising our glorious past, not moaning? Wait, does Leon even exist? So confused right now.
Pull yourself together. Not everything is about your @Leon obsession.
Au contraire. 806 years of English history has been leading to exactly this moment. All our greatest hours: Dunkirk! Suez! The Somme! Yorktown! are mere paving slabs on the road that has lead us to this. This! This best of all possible worlds! For God, Leon, and St George!
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.
Vogon Captain style bad.
No mention of the beautiful bridge o'er the silvery Thames?
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.
The EU isn't going to kick Poland or Hungary out.
There is the moral argument - that if it did so, it would, in effect be abandoning the substantial liberal groupings in both countries.
There is the EU argument - that the EU Is forever.
There is also the geo-political argument. If either are kicked out, the loss of EU subsidies would cause a massive jolt for either countries economy. Aside from the governments in both cases using that jolt to blame the EU more, what else might happen.
Poland is a net beneficiary of something like 13 billion Euro. Hungary 5 billion. Imagine Russia or China picking up the tab.....
So what you are saying is that Poland holds all the cards?
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.
You're quite correct in these matters.
Potential sarcasm alert but I ignore that and say cheers thanks. 🙂
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
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.
Vogon Captain style bad.
No mention of the beautiful bridge o'er the silvery Thames?
TAY
Thames was Wordsworth, Earth hath not anything to show more fair and so on
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
NYTimes
Awe, I was looking forward to the trillion dollar platinum coin.
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
NYTimes
Awe, I was looking forward to the trillion dollar platinum coin.
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
NYTimes
Awe, I was looking forward to the trillion dollar platinum coin.
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.
Stuff that's happened just "is".
I thought we were praising our glorious past, not moaning? Wait, does Leon even exist? So confused right now.
Pull yourself together. Not everything is about your @Leon obsession.
Au contraire. 806 years of English history has been leading to exactly this moment. All our greatest hours: Dunkirk! Suez! The Somme! Yorktown! are mere paving slabs on the road that has lead us to this. This! This best of all possible worlds! For God, Leon, and St George!
Pop!
Oh, I'm terribly sorry about your balloon.
Some of our better hours will be partly up to you. I'm sure I'll have the most meaningless of an influence, perhaps you will too. Nonetheless trying is a good thing.
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
NYTimes
Awe, I was looking forward to the trillion dollar platinum coin.
Imagine if someone nicked it,
And then got distracted by some candy in a nearby vending machine...
"Justice Department officials scrambled to stave off a series of events during a period when Mr. Trump was getting advice about blocking certification of the election from a lawyer he had first seen on television "
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
NYTimes
Awe, I was looking forward to the trillion dollar platinum coin.
So if there was no reduction at all in fuel deliveries to cause our fuel "crisis" and we can pin blame for the initial spark of panic on the corporate interests involved, how much blame should be on the traditional media for their reporting of this, and how left over for the social media warrior remainers who gleefully whipped up the panic as they thought they could blame it on Brexit?
I think I'd go so far as to suggest that the FBPE crew have been proved at least as powerful a force at spreading dangerous disinformation as the Trumpites.
IF, by some chance, we have any FBPE social media warriors here, they ought to reflect on this and be a damn sight more careful with their eager fingers.
Be careful before you ("it definitely isn't a") retweet
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
NYTimes
Awe, I was looking forward to the trillion dollar platinum coin.
Imagine if someone nicked it,
And then got distracted by some candy in a nearby vending machine...
{compellingly awful german accent}
Yesterday ve vere an army with no country, tomorrow ve must decide which country ve vant to buy!
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.
The EU isn't going to kick Poland or Hungary out.
There is the moral argument - that if it did so, it would, in effect be abandoning the substantial liberal groupings in both countries.
There is the EU argument - that the EU Is forever.
There is also the geo-political argument. If either are kicked out, the loss of EU subsidies would cause a massive jolt for either countries economy. Aside from the governments in both cases using that jolt to blame the EU more, what else might happen.
Poland is a net beneficiary of something like 13 billion Euro. Hungary 5 billion. Imagine Russia or China picking up the tab.....
My guess as to why Kaczynski instructed the politically motivated, pseudo-constitutional court to make this ruling? Because he wants to cheat in the next elections, and he needs to be as far removed from the EU by then as possible. But that's just a guess. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1446177618055815180
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.
The EU isn't going to kick Poland or Hungary out.
There is the moral argument - that if it did so, it would, in effect be abandoning the substantial liberal groupings in both countries.
There is the EU argument - that the EU Is forever.
There is also the geo-political argument. If either are kicked out, the loss of EU subsidies would cause a massive jolt for either countries economy. Aside from the governments in both cases using that jolt to blame the EU more, what else might happen.
Poland is a net beneficiary of something like 13 billion Euro. Hungary 5 billion. Imagine Russia or China picking up the tab.....
So what you are saying is that Poland holds all the cards?
I'll get my coat.
I'm sorry, Poland and Hungary were holding your coat. They mentioned something about finding a wallet and being down the pub?
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.
Yes but that's a different point. Market smarts and logistics rather than "wrong price".
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.
Yes but that's a different point. Market smarts and logistics rather than "wrong price".
Wrong (Brownian) approach to "market smarts and logistics" = wrong price
COVID STATS ALERT The government has lost control of testing? PCRs are getting it wrong? 😟
What are you trying to say?
I do think we've had the false PCR positives discussion already ...
{gets baseball bat out, starts sharpening the nails embedded in it with a gurkha sharpening tool}
False PCR positives, you say? How interesting....
It was only a vague recollection of a discussion. Perhaps we should rehearse the arguments again, just to be sure ...
{kicks the hutch full of mad lawyers, casual like...}
Go on....
Mad lawyers? Well guv, I can do you a good deal on those. Two for the price of three. I keep them right by the media scientists ...
Good Lord man, you are competing with me? Its there no honour among Emporia these days? I let you have the media scientist business all to yourself, recommend your wares.....
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.
The EU isn't going to kick Poland or Hungary out.
There is the moral argument - that if it did so, it would, in effect be abandoning the substantial liberal groupings in both countries.
There is the EU argument - that the EU Is forever.
There is also the geo-political argument. If either are kicked out, the loss of EU subsidies would cause a massive jolt for either countries economy. Aside from the governments in both cases using that jolt to blame the EU more, what else might happen.
Poland is a net beneficiary of something like 13 billion Euro. Hungary 5 billion. Imagine Russia or China picking up the tab.....
My guess as to why Kaczynski instructed the politically motivated, pseudo-constitutional court to make this ruling? Because he wants to cheat in the next elections, and he needs to be as far removed from the EU by then as possible. But that's just a guess. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1446177618055815180
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.
Yes but that's a different point. Market smarts and logistics rather than "wrong price".
The really fun bit was that Gordon, in his modernisation of the Bank of England got rid of the Gold Dept. Who made profit every year, and were experts on the buying and selling of gold.
That ranks up there with the binning of the MoD ammunition buying group, because they weren't modern. While they were a bit nerdy and gun enthusiastic, they knew the difference between cheap ammunition and the stuff that worked.
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.
Vogon Captain style bad.
No mention of the beautiful bridge o'er the silvery Thames?
So if there was no reduction at all in fuel deliveries to cause our fuel "crisis" and we can pin blame for the initial spark of panic on the corporate interests involved, how much blame should be on the traditional media for their reporting of this, and how left over for the social media warrior remainers who gleefully whipped up the panic as they thought they could blame it on Brexit?
I think I'd go so far as to suggest that the FBPE crew have been proved at least as powerful a force at spreading dangerous disinformation as the Trumpites.
IF, by some chance, we have any FBPE social media warriors here, they ought to reflect on this and be a damn sight more careful with their eager fingers.
Be careful before you ("it definitely isn't a") retweet
This FBPE sounds like quite the engine for persuasion. If they applied their considerable talents to politics, they could get the country to turn against Brexit or something.
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.
Vogon Captain style bad.
No mention of the beautiful bridge o'er the silvery Thames?
So if there was no reduction at all in fuel deliveries to cause our fuel "crisis" and we can pin blame for the initial spark of panic on the corporate interests involved, how much blame should be on the traditional media for their reporting of this, and how left over for the social media warrior remainers who gleefully whipped up the panic as they thought they could blame it on Brexit?
I think I'd go so far as to suggest that the FBPE crew have been proved at least as powerful a force at spreading dangerous disinformation as the Trumpites.
IF, by some chance, we have any FBPE social media warriors here, they ought to reflect on this and be a damn sight more careful with their eager fingers.
Be careful before you ("it definitely isn't a") retweet
This FBPE sounds like quite the engine for persuasion. If they applied their considerable talents to politics, they could get the country to turn against Brexit or something.
They may need to adjust their tactics from things like applauding French threats to cut off electricity and close our ports to cancel Christmas, if they have any desire to win over this country.
I think they've got far less chance than the Trumpites have of victory. Helping to unnecessarily disrupt fuel supplies is the closest they'll probably get to a "win"
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.
Vogon Captain style bad.
No mention of the beautiful bridge o'er the silvery Thames?
Is this poet also the artist that did this?:
Now that's what I call Art.
Riding a lion sidesaddle, without a saddle? Impressive.
So if there was no reduction at all in fuel deliveries to cause our fuel "crisis" and we can pin blame for the initial spark of panic on the corporate interests involved, how much blame should be on the traditional media for their reporting of this, and how left over for the social media warrior remainers who gleefully whipped up the panic as they thought they could blame it on Brexit?
I know it's a bit radical. But I'm rather tempted to blame the panic buying on the panic buyers.
COVID STATS ALERT The government has lost control of testing? PCRs are getting it wrong? 😟
What are you trying to say?
I do think we've had the false PCR positives discussion already ...
{gets baseball bat out, starts sharpening the nails embedded in it with a gurkha sharpening tool}
False PCR positives, you say? How interesting....
It was only a vague recollection of a discussion. Perhaps we should rehearse the arguments again, just to be sure ...
{kicks the hutch full of mad lawyers, casual like...}
Go on....
Mad lawyers? Well guv, I can do you a good deal on those. Two for the price of three. I keep them right by the media scientists ...
Good Lord man, you are competing with me? Its there no honour among Emporia these days? I let you have the media scientist business all to yourself, recommend your wares.....
Sir, you forget yourself. Every emporium of the finest wares needs its own stock of mad lawyers, acrid accountants and horrible HR to keep business off the books... I mean, on the straight and narrow. I've just got a surplus of mad lawyers at the moment, on account of the sad demise of a rival purveyor, when their roof tragically fell in on account of the strange removal of its support pillars.
Which reminds me, I have a good offer on support pillars carved in varying shapes of a pouting Robert Peston. Second-hand, but little used. Only minor damage from a falling roof. No-one seems to want them ...
So if there was no reduction at all in fuel deliveries to cause our fuel "crisis" and we can pin blame for the initial spark of panic on the corporate interests involved, how much blame should be on the traditional media for their reporting of this, and how left over for the social media warrior remainers who gleefully whipped up the panic as they thought they could blame it on Brexit?
I think I'd go so far as to suggest that the FBPE crew have been proved at least as powerful a force at spreading dangerous disinformation as the Trumpites.
IF, by some chance, we have any FBPE social media warriors here, they ought to reflect on this and be a damn sight more careful with their eager fingers.
Be careful before you ("it definitely isn't a") retweet
This FBPE sounds like quite the engine for persuasion. If they applied their considerable talents to politics, they could get the country to turn against Brexit or something.
They may need to adjust their tactics from things like applauding French threats to cut off electricity and close our ports to cancel Christmas, if they have any desire to win over this country.
I think they've got far less chance than the Trumpites have of victory. Helping to unnecessarily disrupt fuel supplies is the closest they'll probably get to a "win"
Aren't you failing to get the updated party line? Shortages are a good thing as they drive up wages and innovation. Such as walking home after the car conks out. Good for both health and environment!
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.
Vogon Captain style bad.
No mention of the beautiful bridge o'er the silvery Thames?
Is this poet also the artist that did this?:
Now that's what I call Art.
For those wanting higher resolution to appreciate it in its fullest glory:
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.
Yes but that's a different point. Market smarts and logistics rather than "wrong price".
Wrong (Brownian) approach to "market smarts and logistics" = wrong price
But not the point I'm making. It's a different one. Truly, it is.
So if there was no reduction at all in fuel deliveries to cause our fuel "crisis" and we can pin blame for the initial spark of panic on the corporate interests involved, how much blame should be on the traditional media for their reporting of this, and how left over for the social media warrior remainers who gleefully whipped up the panic as they thought they could blame it on Brexit?
I know it's a bit radical. But I'm rather tempted to blame the panic buying on the panic buyers.
I wanted to, and I mentally called them all wankers as I drove or walked past the few queues I saw outside petrol stations, but I don't think it's actually fair. Once panic buying has started, it annoyingly makes sense.
So if there was no reduction at all in fuel deliveries to cause our fuel "crisis" and we can pin blame for the initial spark of panic on the corporate interests involved, how much blame should be on the traditional media for their reporting of this, and how left over for the social media warrior remainers who gleefully whipped up the panic as they thought they could blame it on Brexit?
I think I'd go so far as to suggest that the FBPE crew have been proved at least as powerful a force at spreading dangerous disinformation as the Trumpites.
IF, by some chance, we have any FBPE social media warriors here, they ought to reflect on this and be a damn sight more careful with their eager fingers.
Be careful before you ("it definitely isn't a") retweet
This FBPE sounds like quite the engine for persuasion. If they applied their considerable talents to politics, they could get the country to turn against Brexit or something.
They may need to adjust their tactics from things like applauding French threats to cut off electricity and close our ports to cancel Christmas, if they have any desire to win over this country.
I think they've got far less chance than the Trumpites have of victory. Helping to unnecessarily disrupt fuel supplies is the closest they'll probably get to a "win"
Aren't you failing to get the updated party line? Shortages are a good thing as they drive up wages and innovation. Such as walking home after the car conks out. Good for both health and environment!
Did you blame it on Brexit?
Do you feel a bit stupid for doing that?
Are you trying to deflect with some (frankly, pretty lame) humour?
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.
Vogon Captain style bad.
No mention of the beautiful bridge o'er the silvery Thames?
Is this poet also the artist that did this?:
Now that's what I call Art.
For those wanting higher resolution to appreciate it in its fullest glory:
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.
Stuff that's happened just "is".
I thought we were praising our glorious past, not moaning? Wait, does Leon even exist? So confused right now.
Pull yourself together. Not everything is about your @Leon obsession.
Au contraire. 806 years of English history has been leading to exactly this moment. All our greatest hours: Dunkirk! Suez! The Somme! Yorktown! are mere paving slabs on the road that has lead us to this. This! This best of all possible worlds! For God, Leon, and St George!
COVID STATS ALERT The government has lost control of testing? PCRs are getting it wrong? 😟
What are you trying to say?
I do think we've had the false PCR positives discussion already ...
{gets baseball bat out, starts sharpening the nails embedded in it with a gurkha sharpening tool}
False PCR positives, you say? How interesting....
It was only a vague recollection of a discussion. Perhaps we should rehearse the arguments again, just to be sure ...
{kicks the hutch full of mad lawyers, casual like...}
Go on....
Mad lawyers? Well guv, I can do you a good deal on those. Two for the price of three. I keep them right by the media scientists ...
Good Lord man, you are competing with me? Its there no honour among Emporia these days? I let you have the media scientist business all to yourself, recommend your wares.....
Sir, you forget yourself. Every emporium of the finest wares needs its own stock of mad lawyers, acrid accountants and horrible HR to keep business off the books... I mean, on the straight and narrow. I've just got a surplus of mad lawyers at the moment, on account of the sad demise of a rival purveyor, when their roof tragically fell in on account of the strange removal of its support pillars.
Which reminds me, I have a good offer on support pillars carved in varying shapes of a pouting Robert Peston. Second-hand, but little used. Only minor damage from a falling roof. No-one seems to want them ...
All I can say is...
Bravo.
EDIT : can I interest you in some Ethics? Got a surplus of Moral Philosophers - can sell you Ethics by the yard, by the rod or by the ton.
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.
We need more centres that test for BDS - the rates on here would go through the roof!
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."
The stats in that article are a bit more interesting than that, in my view. Notice that stock levels at English filling stations fell sharply from the end of August, while deliveries remained constant. This suggests to me:
(a) demand for fuel increased in September, probably after the holiday season.
(b) the capacity to refuel the stations maxed out at the holiday level of demand, which is about 90% of actual deliveries prior to the pandemic *.
The figures maybe also suggest reliable supply is only assured when average stock levels are above 40% of filling station capacity. Although much improved, and still improving, following the panic buying, they are currently hitting about 25%
* Note: not 90% of the pre-pandemic capacity, which was presumably higher than actual deliveries at the time.
In the week ending Saturday 11 September, 110,788 litres were delivered to fuel stations in the sample data. This was down 3.1% on the previous week. Furthermore, this was around 5,000 litres less than that purchased at the pumps.
In the following 11 days, fuel purchases increased from 115,826 litres to 117,869 litres in the week ending Wednesday 22 September. Just for context, that's getting close to the 125,000 litres a week recorded just before COVID. Deliveries increased too, reaching 114,585 litres in the week ending Wednesday 22 September.
Between 1 and 18 September, a deficit of 11,129 litres was recorded. This is less than the 14,895 litre deficit recorded between 19 May and 7 June. Furthermore, in the four days between 19 and 22 September, a surplus of 294 litres was recorded, compared with a deficit of 328 litres in the same four days the previous week.
In the week ending Saturday 2 October, 141,029 litres were delivered to the stations in the sample. An increase of 20% on the previous seven days.
Wrong (Brownian) approach to "market smarts and logistics" = wrong price
But not the point I'm making. It's a different one. Truly, it is.
I know. But you brought in the equivalence with the Brown gold rush. If the process of joining a single currency warranted an equivalent disregard of current prices (and costs) I'd fear for our prospects.
So if there was no reduction at all in fuel deliveries to cause our fuel "crisis" and we can pin blame for the initial spark of panic on the corporate interests involved, how much blame should be on the traditional media for their reporting of this, and how left over for the social media warrior remainers who gleefully whipped up the panic as they thought they could blame it on Brexit?
I think I'd go so far as to suggest that the FBPE crew have been proved at least as powerful a force at spreading dangerous disinformation as the Trumpites.
IF, by some chance, we have any FBPE social media warriors here, they ought to reflect on this and be a damn sight more careful with their eager fingers.
Be careful before you ("it definitely isn't a") retweet
This FBPE sounds like quite the engine for persuasion. If they applied their considerable talents to politics, they could get the country to turn against Brexit or something.
They may need to adjust their tactics from things like applauding French threats to cut off electricity and close our ports to cancel Christmas, if they have any desire to win over this country.
I think they've got far less chance than the Trumpites have of victory. Helping to unnecessarily disrupt fuel supplies is the closest they'll probably get to a "win"
Aren't you failing to get the updated party line? Shortages are a good thing as they drive up wages and innovation. Such as walking home after the car conks out. Good for both health and environment!
Did you blame it on Brexit?
Do you feel a bit stupid for doing that?
Are you trying to deflect with some (frankly, pretty lame) humour?
No, I didn't blame it on Brexit. You won't find a post from me saying so.
I blame it on government incompetence. The RHA have been talking of the growing crisis of logistics for months, and the government did sweet FA until the problem slapped them in the face.
The sheer amount of hatred the Labour left is demonstrating towards Keir Starmer strongly suggests whatever his faults he is at least getting something right.
Wrong (Brownian) approach to "market smarts and logistics" = wrong price
But not the point I'm making. It's a different one. Truly, it is.
I know. But you brought in the equivalence with the Brown gold rush. If the process of joining a single currency warranted an equivalent disregard of current prices (and costs) I'd fear for our prospects.
Many serious economists have studied and commented upon the rate at which the East German Mark joined the West, for example.
The common view seems to be that while politically necessary, it caused profound and deep damage in the East.
So if there was no reduction at all in fuel deliveries to cause our fuel "crisis" and we can pin blame for the initial spark of panic on the corporate interests involved, how much blame should be on the traditional media for their reporting of this, and how left over for the social media warrior remainers who gleefully whipped up the panic as they thought they could blame it on Brexit?
I think I'd go so far as to suggest that the FBPE crew have been proved at least as powerful a force at spreading dangerous disinformation as the Trumpites.
IF, by some chance, we have any FBPE social media warriors here, they ought to reflect on this and be a damn sight more careful with their eager fingers.
Be careful before you ("it definitely isn't a") retweet
This FBPE sounds like quite the engine for persuasion. If they applied their considerable talents to politics, they could get the country to turn against Brexit or something.
They may need to adjust their tactics from things like applauding French threats to cut off electricity and close our ports to cancel Christmas, if they have any desire to win over this country.
I think they've got far less chance than the Trumpites have of victory. Helping to unnecessarily disrupt fuel supplies is the closest they'll probably get to a "win"
Aren't you failing to get the updated party line? Shortages are a good thing as they drive up wages and innovation. Such as walking home after the car conks out. Good for both health and environment!
Did you blame it on Brexit?
Do you feel a bit stupid for doing that?
Are you trying to deflect with some (frankly, pretty lame) humour?
No, I didn't blame it on Brexit. You won't find a post from me saying so.
I blame it on government incompetence. The RHA have been talking of the growing crisis of logistics, and the government did sweet FA until the problem slapped them in the face.
There was no issue with fuel supply logistics.
Should the government legislate to ensure that the fuel logistics industry is permanently prepared for panic buying bouts stoked by idiots? How much do you want to pay for fuel?!
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."
The stats in that article are a bit more interesting than that, in my view. Notice that stock levels at English filling stations fell sharply from the end of August, while deliveries remained constant. This suggests to me:
(a) demand for fuel increased in September, probably after the holiday season.
(b) the capacity to refuel the stations maxed out at the holiday level of demand, which is about 90% of actual deliveries prior to the pandemic *.
The figures maybe also suggest reliable supply is only assured when average stock levels are above 40% of filling station capacity. Although much improved, and still improving, following the panic buying, they are currently hitting about 25%
* Note: not 90% of the pre-pandemic capacity, which was presumably higher than actual deliveries at the time.
COVID STATS ALERT The government has lost control of testing? PCRs are getting it wrong? 😟
What are you trying to say?
I do think we've had the false PCR positives discussion already ...
{gets baseball bat out, starts sharpening the nails embedded in it with a gurkha sharpening tool}
False PCR positives, you say? How interesting....
It was only a vague recollection of a discussion. Perhaps we should rehearse the arguments again, just to be sure ...
{kicks the hutch full of mad lawyers, casual like...}
Go on....
Mad lawyers? Well guv, I can do you a good deal on those. Two for the price of three. I keep them right by the media scientists ...
Good Lord man, you are competing with me? Its there no honour among Emporia these days? I let you have the media scientist business all to yourself, recommend your wares.....
Sir, you forget yourself. Every emporium of the finest wares needs its own stock of mad lawyers, acrid accountants and horrible HR to keep business off the books... I mean, on the straight and narrow. I've just got a surplus of mad lawyers at the moment, on account of the sad demise of a rival purveyor, when their roof tragically fell in on account of the strange removal of its support pillars.
Which reminds me, I have a good offer on support pillars carved in varying shapes of a pouting Robert Peston. Second-hand, but little used. Only minor damage from a falling roof. No-one seems to want them ...
All I can say is...
Bravo.
EDIT : can I interest you in some Ethics? Got a surplus of Moral Philosophers - can sell you Ethics by the yard, by the rod or by the ton.
I've got an outlet in Cambridgeshire. That's right next to Ethics if you need a new supply. Though my Cambridgeshire outlet has a surplus of Moral Philosophers speaking Russian...
The sheer amount of hatred the Labour left is demonstrating towards Keir Starmer strongly suggests whatever his faults he is at least getting something right.
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
Utterly disgusting to have the Saudis declared 'fit and proper'. 🤮
But then City has the Qataris and they're not much better.
Man City? They’re Emiratis, not Qataris.
Qataris are PSG, are they not?
But I don't think that letting them buy footy clubs is that bad, after all we do a lot of trade with nasty human rights abusing dictatorships. If we want to stop trading, how about stopping selling them bombs rather than footballers?
Utterly disgusting to have the Saudis declared 'fit and proper'. 🤮
But then City has the Qataris and they're not much better.
Man City? They’re Emiratis, not Qataris.
Qataris are PSG, are they not?
But I don't think that letting them buy footy clubs is that bad, after all we do a lot of trade with nasty human rights abusing dictatorships. If we want to stop trading, how about stopping selling them bombs rather than footballers?
Would we prefer them to buy bombs, or football clubs, from China and Russia?
COVID STATS ALERT The government has lost control of testing? PCRs are getting it wrong? 😟
What are you trying to say?
I do think we've had the false PCR positives discussion already ...
{gets baseball bat out, starts sharpening the nails embedded in it with a gurkha sharpening tool}
False PCR positives, you say? How interesting....
It was only a vague recollection of a discussion. Perhaps we should rehearse the arguments again, just to be sure ...
{kicks the hutch full of mad lawyers, casual like...}
Go on....
Mad lawyers? Well guv, I can do you a good deal on those. Two for the price of three. I keep them right by the media scientists ...
Good Lord man, you are competing with me? Its there no honour among Emporia these days? I let you have the media scientist business all to yourself, recommend your wares.....
Sir, you forget yourself. Every emporium of the finest wares needs its own stock of mad lawyers, acrid accountants and horrible HR to keep business off the books... I mean, on the straight and narrow. I've just got a surplus of mad lawyers at the moment, on account of the sad demise of a rival purveyor, when their roof tragically fell in on account of the strange removal of its support pillars.
Which reminds me, I have a good offer on support pillars carved in varying shapes of a pouting Robert Peston. Second-hand, but little used. Only minor damage from a falling roof. No-one seems to want them ...
All I can say is...
Bravo.
EDIT : can I interest you in some Ethics? Got a surplus of Moral Philosophers - can sell you Ethics by the yard, by the rod or by the ton.
I've got an outlet in Cambridgeshire. That's right next to Ethics if you need a new supply. Though my Cambridgeshire outlet has a surplus of Moral Philosophers speaking Russian...
Trying to switch to supplying Immoral Philosophers - seems to be more of a demand....
COVID STATS ALERT The government has lost control of testing? PCRs are getting it wrong? 😟
What are you trying to say?
I do think we've had the false PCR positives discussion already ...
{gets baseball bat out, starts sharpening the nails embedded in it with a gurkha sharpening tool}
False PCR positives, you say? How interesting....
It was only a vague recollection of a discussion. Perhaps we should rehearse the arguments again, just to be sure ...
{kicks the hutch full of mad lawyers, casual like...}
Go on....
Mad lawyers? Well guv, I can do you a good deal on those. Two for the price of three. I keep them right by the media scientists ...
Good Lord man, you are competing with me? Its there no honour among Emporia these days? I let you have the media scientist business all to yourself, recommend your wares.....
Sir, you forget yourself. Every emporium of the finest wares needs its own stock of mad lawyers, acrid accountants and horrible HR to keep business off the books... I mean, on the straight and narrow. I've just got a surplus of mad lawyers at the moment, on account of the sad demise of a rival purveyor, when their roof tragically fell in on account of the strange removal of its support pillars.
Which reminds me, I have a good offer on support pillars carved in varying shapes of a pouting Robert Peston. Second-hand, but little used. Only minor damage from a falling roof. No-one seems to want them ...
All I can say is...
Bravo.
EDIT : can I interest you in some Ethics? Got a surplus of Moral Philosophers - can sell you Ethics by the yard, by the rod or by the ton.
The sheer amount of hatred the Labour left is demonstrating towards Keir Starmer strongly suggests whatever his faults he is at least getting something right.
Sir FIGJAM!
He's the Kevin Pietersen of British politics. Mark my word: next he'll be texting the EU advising them how to run rings around Frosty in the NI protocol negotiations.
The sheer amount of hatred the Labour left is demonstrating towards Keir Starmer strongly suggests whatever his faults he is at least getting something right.
Sir Keir is certainly the most hated Labour leader by the left since Blair.
However that will provide him with some encouragement as Blair was also the last Labour leader to win a general election
Utterly disgusting to have the Saudis declared 'fit and proper'. 🤮
But then City has the Qataris and they're not much better.
Man City? They’re Emiratis, not Qataris.
Qataris are PSG, are they not?
But I don't think that letting them buy footy clubs is that bad, after all we do a lot of trade with nasty human rights abusing dictatorships. If we want to stop trading, how about stopping selling them bombs rather than footballers?
Would we prefer them to buy bombs, or football clubs, from China and Russia?
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
When was the last time England defaulted on a loan? Was it the Florentine default of 1344?
Found this: "The founding of the Bank of England put an end to defaults such as the Great Stop of the Exchequer of 1672, when Charles II had suspended payments on his bills. From then on, the British Government would never fail to repay its creditors."
COVID STATS ALERT The government has lost control of testing? PCRs are getting it wrong? 😟
What are you trying to say?
I do think we've had the false PCR positives discussion already ...
{gets baseball bat out, starts sharpening the nails embedded in it with a gurkha sharpening tool}
False PCR positives, you say? How interesting....
It was only a vague recollection of a discussion. Perhaps we should rehearse the arguments again, just to be sure ...
{kicks the hutch full of mad lawyers, casual like...}
Go on....
Mad lawyers? Well guv, I can do you a good deal on those. Two for the price of three. I keep them right by the media scientists ...
Good Lord man, you are competing with me? Its there no honour among Emporia these days? I let you have the media scientist business all to yourself, recommend your wares.....
Sir, you forget yourself. Every emporium of the finest wares needs its own stock of mad lawyers, acrid accountants and horrible HR to keep business off the books... I mean, on the straight and narrow. I've just got a surplus of mad lawyers at the moment, on account of the sad demise of a rival purveyor, when their roof tragically fell in on account of the strange removal of its support pillars.
Which reminds me, I have a good offer on support pillars carved in varying shapes of a pouting Robert Peston. Second-hand, but little used. Only minor damage from a falling roof. No-one seems to want them ...
All I can say is...
Bravo.
EDIT : can I interest you in some Ethics? Got a surplus of Moral Philosophers - can sell you Ethics by the yard, by the rod or by the ton.
I prefer Hampshire to Ethics, thanks
How about Wales? - all I need is your immortal soul.
Worked out well for Richard Rich and descendants....
Utterly disgusting to have the Saudis declared 'fit and proper'. 🤮
But then City has the Qataris and they're not much better.
Man City? They’re Emiratis, not Qataris.
Qataris are PSG, are they not?
But I don't think that letting them buy footy clubs is that bad, after all we do a lot of trade with nasty human rights abusing dictatorships. If we want to stop trading, how about stopping selling them bombs rather than footballers?
Would we prefer them to buy bombs, or football clubs, from China and Russia?
The "there is a worse pusher than us" argument?
Well there is an argument that selling the Suadi's Tornado F3s prevented them spending the money on something that might be dangerous to other people....
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
When was the last time England defaulted on a loan? Was it the Florentine default of 1344?
Found this: "The founding of the Bank of England put an end to defaults such as the Great Stop of the Exchequer of 1672, when Charles II had suspended payments on his bills. From then on, the British Government would never fail to repay its creditors."
So actually not nearly as long ago as I thought. But still longer than the United States or indeed Great Britain/the United Kingdom has existed.
Utterly disgusting to have the Saudis declared 'fit and proper'. 🤮
But then City has the Qataris and they're not much better.
Man City? They’re Emiratis, not Qataris.
Qataris are PSG, are they not?
But I don't think that letting them buy footy clubs is that bad, after all we do a lot of trade with nasty human rights abusing dictatorships. If we want to stop trading, how about stopping selling them bombs rather than footballers?
Would we prefer them to buy bombs, or football clubs, from China and Russia?
The "there is a worse pusher than us" argument?
It seems ingrained.. I think I probably learnt it from Sir Humphrey!
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.
The EU isn't going to kick Poland or Hungary out.
There is the moral argument - that if it did so, it would, in effect be abandoning the substantial liberal groupings in both countries.
There is the EU argument - that the EU Is forever.
There is also the geo-political argument. If either are kicked out, the loss of EU subsidies would cause a massive jolt for either countries economy. Aside from the governments in both cases using that jolt to blame the EU more, what else might happen.
Poland is a net beneficiary of something like 13 billion Euro. Hungary 5 billion. Imagine Russia or China picking up the tab.....
My guess as to why Kaczynski instructed the politically motivated, pseudo-constitutional court to make this ruling? Because he wants to cheat in the next elections, and he needs to be as far removed from the EU by then as possible. But that's just a guess. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1446177618055815180
I wouldn't be so sure, Poland is closer in its politics to Texas than the rest of the EU.
I would npt be surprised to see Law and Justice win again
"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?
The illegal bit is enactments.
My Father was well into Frank Richards books. He had a full library of Bunter, Etc, books. I enjoyed them at the time. Now they are embarrassing. Have I become too woke!
The sheer amount of hatred the Labour left is demonstrating towards Keir Starmer strongly suggests whatever his faults he is at least getting something right.
Sir FIGJAM!
He's the Kevin Pietersen of British politics. Mark my word: next he'll be texting the EU advising them how to run rings around Frosty in the NI protocol negotiations.
Utterly disgusting to have the Saudis declared 'fit and proper'. 🤮
But then City has the Qataris and they're not much better.
Man City? They’re Emiratis, not Qataris.
Qataris are PSG, are they not?
But I don't think that letting them buy footy clubs is that bad, after all we do a lot of trade with nasty human rights abusing dictatorships. If we want to stop trading, how about stopping selling them bombs rather than footballers?
Would we prefer them to buy bombs, or football clubs, from China and Russia?
The "there is a worse pusher than us" argument?
Well there is an argument that selling the Suadi's Tornado F3s prevented them spending the money on something that might be dangerous to other people....
I suppose that the Toon money pit will stop them from buying a squadron of bombers, so not such a bad move.
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."
The stats in that article are a bit more interesting than that, in my view. Notice that stock levels at English filling stations fell sharply from the end of August, while deliveries remained constant. This suggests to me:
(a) demand for fuel increased in September, probably after the holiday season.
(b) the capacity to refuel the stations maxed out at the holiday level of demand, which is about 90% of actual deliveries prior to the pandemic *.
The figures maybe also suggest reliable supply is only assured when average stock levels are above 40% of filling station capacity. Although much improved, and still improving, following the panic buying, they are currently hitting about 25%
* Note: not 90% of the pre-pandemic capacity, which was presumably higher than actual deliveries at the time.
I think if it was purely due to fuel stations running down their stocks ahead of switching to a new fuel you would see deliveries fall during that period. The combination of constant deliveries and falling stocks strongly suggests an increase in demand, which for a specific reason, wasn't met.
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
When was the last time England defaulted on a loan? Was it the Florentine default of 1344?
Found this: "The founding of the Bank of England put an end to defaults such as the Great Stop of the Exchequer of 1672, when Charles II had suspended payments on his bills. From then on, the British Government would never fail to repay its creditors."
So actually not nearly as long ago as I thought. But still longer than the United States or indeed Great Britain/the United Kingdom has existed.
Wasn't the 1932 conversion of War Bonds by the UK considered a bit defaulty?
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."
The stats in that article are a bit more interesting than that, in my view. Notice that stock levels at English filling stations fell sharply from the end of August, while deliveries remained constant. This suggests to me:
(a) demand for fuel increased in September, probably after the holiday season.
(b) the capacity to refuel the stations maxed out at the holiday level of demand, which is about 90% of actual deliveries prior to the pandemic *.
The figures maybe also suggest reliable supply is only assured when average stock levels are above 40% of filling station capacity. Although much improved, and still improving, following the panic buying, they are currently hitting about 25%
* Note: not 90% of the pre-pandemic capacity, which was presumably higher than actual deliveries at the time.
I think if it was purely due to fuel stations running down their stocks ahead of switching to a new fuel you would see deliveries fall during that period. The combination of constant deliveries and falling stocks strongly suggests an increase in demand, which for a specific reason, wasn't met.
Constant deliveries is consistent with an increase in demand and wanting to run down existing stocks. There was clearly capacity for increased deliveries, it just wasn't used.
Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December, temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the G.O.P. agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.
When was the last time England defaulted on a loan? Was it the Florentine default of 1344?
Found this: "The founding of the Bank of England put an end to defaults such as the Great Stop of the Exchequer of 1672, when Charles II had suspended payments on his bills. From then on, the British Government would never fail to repay its creditors."
For their 300 birthday we gave the Bank of England an original version of a pamphlet an ancestor had written saying it was a dreadful idea because it would inevitably lead to higher inflation and currency devaluation…
It was actually the casus belli of why we left the Whigs and started supporting the Tories…
COVID STATS ALERT The government has lost control of testing? PCRs are getting it wrong? 😟
What are you trying to say?
I do think we've had the false PCR positives discussion already ...
{gets baseball bat out, starts sharpening the nails embedded in it with a gurkha sharpening tool}
False PCR positives, you say? How interesting....
It was only a vague recollection of a discussion. Perhaps we should rehearse the arguments again, just to be sure ...
{kicks the hutch full of mad lawyers, casual like...}
Go on....
Mad lawyers? Well guv, I can do you a good deal on those. Two for the price of three. I keep them right by the media scientists ...
Good Lord man, you are competing with me? Its there no honour among Emporia these days? I let you have the media scientist business all to yourself, recommend your wares.....
Sir, you forget yourself. Every emporium of the finest wares needs its own stock of mad lawyers, acrid accountants and horrible HR to keep business off the books... I mean, on the straight and narrow. I've just got a surplus of mad lawyers at the moment, on account of the sad demise of a rival purveyor, when their roof tragically fell in on account of the strange removal of its support pillars.
Which reminds me, I have a good offer on support pillars carved in varying shapes of a pouting Robert Peston. Second-hand, but little used. Only minor damage from a falling roof. No-one seems to want them ...
All I can say is...
Bravo.
EDIT : can I interest you in some Ethics? Got a surplus of Moral Philosophers - can sell you Ethics by the yard, by the rod or by the ton.
I prefer Hampshire to Ethics, thanks
How about Wales? - all I need is your immortal soul.
Worked out well for Richard Rich and descendants....
Comments
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.
Never say "never again".
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/texas-judge-blocks-abortion-ban-in-rebuke-to-supreme-court.html
Certainly better argued that the miserable opinion from the Supreme Court.
There is the moral argument - that if it did so, it would, in effect be abandoning the substantial liberal groupings in both countries.
There is the EU argument - that the EU Is forever.
There is also the geo-political argument. If either are kicked out, the loss of EU subsidies would cause a massive jolt for either countries economy. Aside from the governments in both cases using that jolt to blame the EU more, what else might happen.
Poland is a net beneficiary of something like 13 billion Euro. Hungary 5 billion. Imagine Russia or China picking up the tab.....
I'll get my coat.
NYTimes
Thames was Wordsworth, Earth hath not anything to show more fair and so on
Oh, I'm terribly sorry about your balloon.
Some of our better hours will be partly up to you. I'm sure I'll have the most meaningless of an influence, perhaps you will too. Nonetheless trying is a good thing.
"Justice Department officials scrambled to stave off a series of events during a period when Mr. Trump was getting advice about blocking certification of the election from a lawyer he had first seen on television "
NYTimes
He'll be back...
IF, by some chance, we have any FBPE social media warriors here, they ought to reflect on this and be a damn sight more careful with their eager fingers.
Be careful before you ("it definitely isn't a") retweet
Yesterday ve vere an army with no country, tomorrow ve must decide which country ve vant to buy!
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1446177618055815180
https://twitter.com/garvanwalshe/status/1446141646849073159
That ranks up there with the binning of the MoD ammunition buying group, because they weren't modern. While they were a bit nerdy and gun enthusiastic, they knew the difference between cheap ammunition and the stuff that worked.
I think they've got far less chance than the Trumpites have of victory. Helping to unnecessarily disrupt fuel supplies is the closest they'll probably get to a "win"
Which reminds me, I have a good offer on support pillars carved in varying shapes of a pouting Robert Peston. Second-hand, but little used. Only minor damage from a falling roof. No-one seems to want them ...
https://twitter.com/RevRichardColes/status/1059722230706421760?t=nOjyM9kKQj1peQdr-yKd-g&s=19
Do you feel a bit stupid for doing that?
Are you trying to deflect with some (frankly, pretty lame) humour?
Bravo.
EDIT : can I interest you in some Ethics? Got a surplus of Moral Philosophers - can sell you Ethics by the yard, by the rod or by the ton.
(a) demand for fuel increased in September, probably after the holiday season.
(b) the capacity to refuel the stations maxed out at the holiday level of demand, which is about 90% of actual deliveries prior to the pandemic *.
The figures maybe also suggest reliable supply is only assured when average stock levels are above 40% of filling station capacity. Although much improved, and still improving, following the panic buying, they are currently hitting about 25%
* Note: not 90% of the pre-pandemic capacity, which was presumably higher than actual deliveries at the time.
In the week ending Saturday 11 September, 110,788 litres were delivered to fuel stations in the sample data. This was down 3.1% on the previous week. Furthermore, this was around 5,000 litres less than that purchased at the pumps.
In the following 11 days, fuel purchases increased from 115,826 litres to 117,869 litres in the week ending Wednesday 22 September. Just for context, that's getting close to the 125,000 litres a week recorded just before COVID. Deliveries increased too, reaching 114,585 litres in the week ending Wednesday 22 September.
Between 1 and 18 September, a deficit of 11,129 litres was recorded. This is less than the 14,895 litre deficit recorded between 19 May and 7 June. Furthermore, in the four days between 19 and 22 September, a surplus of 294 litres was recorded, compared with a deficit of 328 litres in the same four days the previous week.
In the week ending Saturday 2 October, 141,029 litres were delivered to the stations in the sample. An increase of 20% on the previous seven days.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/oil-and-oil-products-section-3-energy-trends
Table: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023727/2021.10.07_Average_road_fuel_sales_and_stock_levels.xlsx
I blame it on government incompetence. The RHA have been talking of the growing crisis of logistics for months, and the government did sweet FA until the problem slapped them in the face.
https://twitter.com/cmonehen/status/1444564759857270784?s=21
The common view seems to be that while politically necessary, it caused profound and deep damage in the East.
Should the government legislate to ensure that the fuel logistics industry is permanently prepared for panic buying bouts stoked by idiots? How much do you want to pay for fuel?!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/07/exclusive-governments-switch-greener-fuel-major-factor-behind/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2013/10/08/actually-the-united-states-has-defaulted-before/?sh=565775a76021
Edit: ah, it was just after. Still, a legitimate question.
But I don't think that letting them buy footy clubs is that bad, after all we do a lot of trade with nasty human rights abusing dictatorships. If we want to stop trading, how about stopping selling them bombs rather than footballers?
However that will provide him with some encouragement as Blair was also the last Labour leader to win a general election
Worked out well for Richard Rich and descendants....
I would npt be surprised to see Law and Justice win again
A Thor would sort Frost out.
It was actually the casus belli of why we left the Whigs and started supporting the Tories…