politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Democrats take small lead in Special Pennsylvania Congressiona
Comments
-
Mr. W, the Lump Levy? The Tubby Toll?0
-
F1: shame testing times aren't any use. Vettel is just 0.014s off Bottas, and Verstappen is 0.039s behind Vettel. If that reflected reality, the season would be rather competitive.0
-
A Corbyn-induced drop is underpinned by the notion that all property is theft. So yes...Dura_Ace said:
I though banks weren't going to lend against depreciating assets. Or is a tory induced drop in prices qualitatively better than a Corbyn induced drop?Sandpit said:
If supply goes up and / or demand goes down, yes.Dura_Ace said:
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?HYUFD said:
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgagesDura_Ace said:
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.Sandpit said:
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.
0 -
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.Nigelb said:Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
0 -
Provided housing supply is increased and immigration is reduced overall housing should still be more affordable despite banks more restricted lendingSandpit said:
A good point that, from an economic theory point of view, banks lending less money means a reduction in demand.HYUFD said:
If greater immigration controls and reduced bank lending reduces demand and more houses being built increases supply then yesDura_Ace said:
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?HYUFD said:
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgagesDura_Ace said:
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.Sandpit said:
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.
Those who can’t get mortgages will see it differently though, from a more political point of view.0 -
The EU has its own science....geoffw said:
More Europe and ever closer union are entropy minimising. Splitting and diversifying away from the centre increases entropy and is therefore the more natural state of the world.MarqueeMark said:
The entropy of the EU. Direction of travel is always towards Brussels.CarlottaVance said:
In this future Herr Selmayr is onto it.....MarqueeMark said:
In that alternate future, Brussels would have filled the power vacuum.JonathanD said:
Imagine an alternate future: Cameron won the referendum and by 2018, you'd have a weak Merkel, an inexperienced Macron and stalemate in Italy. The UK would have been in the driving seat.0 -
Mr. Nabavi, old ground and water under the bridge (ahem) but I think a statement of principle from the EU is worth about as much as the French promise to re-examine the Common Agricultural Policy after Blair threw away half the rebate.0
-
Mr. L, that's rather a lot. Hope it eases off. Had a few walks in -12C (windchill) blizzards and it can be rather unpleasant.0
-
Correct, providing it’s done in a managed and controlled manner it should lead to house price deflation over time - rather than a house price crash.HYUFD said:
Provided housing supply is increased and immigration is reduced overall housing should still be more affordable despite banks more restricted lendingSandpit said:
A good point that, from an economic theory point of view, banks lending less money means a reduction in demand.HYUFD said:
If greater immigration controls and reduced bank lending reduces demand and more houses being built increases supply then yesDura_Ace said:
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?HYUFD said:
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgagesDura_Ace said:
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.Sandpit said:
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.
Those who can’t get mortgages will see it differently though, from a more political point of view.0 -
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).FF43 said:
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.CarlottaVance said:No kidding......
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/9709317888299048960 -
It's not that cold. When I took my son to school this morning it was above zero (and raining). But wow.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. L, that's rather a lot. Hope it eases off. Had a few walks in -12C (windchill) blizzards and it can be rather unpleasant.
0 -
I think the ideal is that nominal prices continue to rise very gradually but real prices fall as the rate of increase is below inflation overall. Easier when inflation was higher of course.Sandpit said:
Correct, providing it’s done in a managed and controlled manner it should lead to house price deflation over time - rather than a house price crash.HYUFD said:
Provided housing supply is increased and immigration is reduced overall housing should still be more affordable despite banks more restricted lendingSandpit said:
A good point that, from an economic theory point of view, banks lending less money means a reduction in demand.HYUFD said:
If greater immigration controls and reduced bank lending reduces demand and more houses being built increases supply then yesDura_Ace said:
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?HYUFD said:
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgagesDura_Ace said:
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.Sandpit said:
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.
Those who can’t get mortgages will see it differently though, from a more political point of view.0 -
Mr. L, was raining here when I took the dog this morning (not to school, though).0
-
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?Richard_Nabavi said:
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.Nigelb said:Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.0 -
Transgender model Munroe Bergdorf has stepped down from her role as an LGBT adviser to a Labour MP - after just over a week in the job. She says her decision is down to "endless attacks on her character" and "online abuse".
By attacks on her character, that would be pointing things like racist tweets...0 -
Mr. Urquhart, she's right about the online abuse. Mind you, it was by her, against white people.0
-
I don't think it was illusory. It was a momentous declaration for the EU to make, quite unprecedented. What I think would have happened was exactly what we wanted: that future EU integration would have centred on the Eurozone, and we'd have been the sort of associate members that we've always wanted to be. It was a tragedy that we threw away the prize just at the point where it was in reach.MarqueeMark said:
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?Richard_Nabavi said:
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.Nigelb said:Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
But it's water under the bridge. The great British public wanted (not unreasonably) to prioritise controlling the unacceptably high levels of immigration as the key issue. I don't blame them for that, it was Leave's best argument, indeed the only really potent one. So we need to respect that whilst minimising the economic damage.0 -
Poor, old Paisley Jr seems to be on a bit of hair trigger.
https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status/970965227339689984
https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status/9709826308658954240 -
-
the wage increase might not be as dramatic as headline nos in FT suggest, but it coudl be symptomatic of wage pressures in the economy...
https://www.ft.com/content/6e45347c-212c-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80
"Sainsbury’s, one of the UK’s largest grocery store chains, says it will boost the minimum pay of its employees, but also scrap bonuses and paid breaks.
The group said in a statement that it will up the base rate of pay to £9.20 an hour from £8. Workers in Zones 1 and 2, compromising central London, will receive at least £9.80 an hour.
The decision comes ahead of the increase slated for April of this year in the National Living Wage to £7.83 an hour from £7.50."
0 -
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.Anorak said:
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).FF43 said:
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.CarlottaVance said:No kidding......
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/9709317888299048960 -
To have been a true win, it would have required the EU acting with a good faith. A good faith that to date has been manufactured in such tiny quanties it makes Darmstadtium look like Iron...Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think it was illusory. It was a momentous declaration for the EU to make, quite unprecedented. What I think would have happened was exactly what we wanted: that future EU integration would have centred on the Eurozone, and we'd have been the sort of associate members that we've always wanted to be. It was a tragedy that we threw away the prize just at the point where it was in reach.MarqueeMark said:
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?Richard_Nabavi said:
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.Nigelb said:Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
But it's water under the bridge. The great British public wanted (not unreasonably) to prioritise controlling the unacceptably high levels of immigration as the key issue. I don't blame them for that, it was Leave's best argument, indeed the only really potent one. So we need to respect that whilst minimising the economic damage.
There still seems to be no answer to "what happened if the pledge on exemption from ever-closer union proved to be illusory?" I suspect the EU would have taken their chances that we would not go for a second Referendum - and would have ploughed on regardless. As is their proven track record.0 -
I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
I don’t if it wage pressures or to do with that supermarkets are busy restructuring the way their stores are staffed, stripping out lots of management roles / pay grades and asking other staff to take on those duties.llef said:the wage increase might not be as dramatic as headline nos in FT suggest, but it coudl be symptomatic of wage pressures in the economy...
https://www.ft.com/content/6e45347c-212c-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80
"Sainsbury’s, one of the UK’s largest grocery store chains, says it will boost the minimum pay of its employees, but also scrap bonuses and paid breaks.
The group said in a statement that it will up the base rate of pay to £9.20 an hour from £8. Workers in Zones 1 and 2, compromising central London, will receive at least £9.80 an hour.
The decision comes ahead of the increase slated for April of this year in the National Living Wage to £7.83 an hour from £7.50."0 -
Matt summarises the housing crisis nicely
https://mobile.twitter.com/Telegraph/status/970724373467316224/photo/10 -
No I understand that.FF43 said:
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.Anorak said:
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).FF43 said:
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.CarlottaVance said:No kidding......
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/970931788829904896
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.0 -
Mr. Gin, probably do as well as Veritas.0
-
"Party of One, your table is ready....Party of One....."GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
Brexiters: never taking yes for an answer.MarqueeMark said:
To have been a true win, it would have required the EU acting with a good faith. A good faith that to date has been manufactured in such tiny quanties it makes Darmstadtium look like Iron...Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think it was illusory. It was a momentous declaration for the EU to make, quite unprecedented. What I think would have happened was exactly what we wanted: that future EU integration would have centred on the Eurozone, and we'd have been the sort of associate members that we've always wanted to be. It was a tragedy that we threw away the prize just at the point where it was in reach.MarqueeMark said:
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?Richard_Nabavi said:
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.Nigelb said:Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
But it's water under the bridge. The great British public wanted (not unreasonably) to prioritise controlling the unacceptably high levels of immigration as the key issue. I don't blame them for that, it was Leave's best argument, indeed the only really potent one. So we need to respect that whilst minimising the economic damage.
There still seems to be no answer to "what happened if the pledge on exemption from ever-closer union proved to be illusory?" I suspect the EU would have taken their chances that we would not go for a second Referendum - and would have ploughed on regardless. As is their proven track record.0 -
Worse I should think... At least most people had actually heard of Kilroy-Silk. Despite all his recent travails I'm not sure anybody outside of political anoraks like us would have the first clue who Henry Bolton is...Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Gin, probably do as well as Veritas.
0 -
There isn't an answer to it. There is no such thing as 100% certainty about the future. What happens if the Brexiteers' assurances about Brexit not crashing the economy prove to be illusory? There's ain't no legally-binding guarantees on that, are there?MarqueeMark said:There still seems to be no answer to "what happened if the pledge on exemption from ever-closer union proved to be illusory?" I suspect the EU would have taken their chances that we would not go for a second Referendum - and would have ploughed on regardless. As is their proven track record.
0 -
Presumably will be literally '1 member, 1 vote'GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
One more reason not to abandon FPTP in these fraught times.GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
Given it was touted as Cameron's big (sole?) win in the renegotiation, I think it is valid to question how - and indeed if - that one win could have been delivered. "Fingers crossed" seems to be the answer.TOPPING said:
Brexiters: never taking yes for an answer.MarqueeMark said:
To have been a true win, it would have required the EU acting with a good faith. A good faith that to date has been manufactured in such tiny quanties it makes Darmstadtium look like Iron...Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think it was illusory. It was a momentous declaration for the EU to make, quite unprecedented. What I think would have happened was exactly what we wanted: that future EU integration would have centred on the Eurozone, and we'd have been the sort of associate members that we've always wanted to be. It was a tragedy that we threw away the prize just at the point where it was in reach.MarqueeMark said:
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?Richard_Nabavi said:
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.Nigelb said:Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
But it's water under the bridge. The great British public wanted (not unreasonably) to prioritise controlling the unacceptably high levels of immigration as the key issue. I don't blame them for that, it was Leave's best argument, indeed the only really potent one. So we need to respect that whilst minimising the economic damage.
There still seems to be no answer to "what happened if the pledge on exemption from ever-closer union proved to be illusory?" I suspect the EU would have taken their chances that we would not go for a second Referendum - and would have ploughed on regardless. As is their proven track record.0 -
TSE is in favour of 'One Nation' isn't he? ;-)GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.Anorak said:
No I understand that.FF43 said:
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.Anorak said:
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).FF43 said:
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.CarlottaVance said:No kidding......
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/970931788829904896
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.0 -
Mr. Mark, well, quite.
Any ideas on when Italy might have its new government?0 -
What about his squeeze?HYUFD said:
Presumably will be literally '1 member, 1 vote'GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
His girlfriends visions of one nation might be a bit different to others.GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
Ironically, the notion of One Nation is the same idea as the hard-core Europhiles. williamglenn could sign up to join that....logical_song said:
TSE is in favour of 'One Nation' isn't he? ;-)GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
It was a formal negotiation, set to be validated at the next treaty change (IIRC), it had just been negotiated by the 28 heads of government and you say oh but they would have reneged.MarqueeMark said:
Given it was touted as Cameron's big (sole?) win in the renegotiation, I think it is valid to question how - and indeed if - that one win could have been delivered. "Fingers crossed" seems to be the answer.TOPPING said:
Brexiters: never taking yes for an answer.MarqueeMark said:
To have been a true win, it would have required the EU acting with a good faith. A good faith that to date has been manufactured in such tiny quanties it makes Darmstadtium look like Iron...Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think it was illusory. It was a momentous declaration for the EU to make, quite unprecedented. What I think would have happened was exactly what we wanted: that future EU integration would have centred on the Eurozone, and we'd have been the sort of associate members that we've always wanted to be. It was a tragedy that we threw away the prize just at the point where it was in reach.MarqueeMark said:
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?Richard_Nabavi said:
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.Nigelb said:Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
But it's water under the bridge. The great British public wanted (not unreasonably) to prioritise controlling the unacceptably high levels of immigration as the key issue. I don't blame them for that, it was Leave's best argument, indeed the only really potent one. So we need to respect that whilst minimising the economic damage.
There still seems to be no answer to "what happened if the pledge on exemption from ever-closer union proved to be illusory?" I suspect the EU would have taken their chances that we would not go for a second Referendum - and would have ploughed on regardless. As is their proven track record.
Why on earth are we negotiating with them now if we have so little faith in them honouring the outcome and this time we won't even be members?0 -
Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer!GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
But is she in this new party or is she a splitter?FrancisUrquhart said:
His girlfriends visions of one nation might be a bit different to others.GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
MarqueeMark said:
Ironically, the notion of One Nation is the same idea as the hard-core Europhiles. williamglenn could sign up to join that....logical_song said:
TSE is in favour of 'One Nation' isn't he? ;-)GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43301773
0 -
0
-
The reason why I think they wouldn't have reneged on it isn't really the legal one, it's that it would have been less trouble for them to stick to it. They could happily play with building their Eurozone super-state without having us causing trouble all the time. Over time I think it would have become accepted that 'of course, the British won't want to be involved in XXX', where XXX is whatever the next stage would be. They'd conceded the principle - a big concession.TOPPING said:It was a formal negotiation, set to be validated at the next treaty change (IIRC), it had just been negotiated by the 28 heads of government and you say oh but they would have reneged.
Why on earth are we negotiating with them now if we have so little faith in them honouring the outcome and this time we won't even be members?0 -
To be fair to him, he does seem to be getting a great response from those you might not expect. "Taking back our country from bad leadership" is really hitting a chord:GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43301773
https://twitter.com/eaukot?lang=en0 -
Yes, and the other side of that coin is that we could have pointed at just about anything and said: Ever Closer Union - we're out.Richard_Nabavi said:
The reason why I think they wouldn't have reneged on it isn't really the legal one, it's that it would have been less trouble for them to stick to it. They could happily play with building their Eurozone super-state without having us causing trouble all the time. Over time I think it would have become accepted that 'of course, the British won't want to be involved in XXX', where XXX is whatever the next stage would be. They'd conceded the principle - a big concession.TOPPING said:It was a formal negotiation, set to be validated at the next treaty change (IIRC), it had just been negotiated by the 28 heads of government and you say oh but they would have reneged.
Why on earth are we negotiating with them now if we have so little faith in them honouring the outcome and this time we won't even be members?
Now of course we did that before (eg. the Fiscal Compact) but as we have all agreed, that ship has sailed.0 -
Whilst that's true, the situation is very unusual in that we start from 100% alignment of regulations, so what we're discussing is managing potential disputes over divergence.FF43 said:I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.
0 -
Yes, talking past each other. But I'm rightFF43 said:
I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.Anorak said:
No I understand that.FF43 said:
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.Anorak said:
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).FF43 said:
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.CarlottaVance said:No kidding......
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/970931788829904896
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.
0 -
Yes, commercial aviation and shipping are two good examples where there’s a lot of regulation but traffic between countries is mostly unimpeded. The EU do maintain a list of banned airlines, but they are mainly from Africa and Indonesia and have abysmal safety records. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_carriers_banned_in_the_European_UnionAnorak said:
No I understand that.FF43 said:
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.Anorak said:
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).FF43 said:
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.CarlottaVance said:No kidding......
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/970931788829904896
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.0 -
Drei Frauen!Foxy said:
Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer!GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
Indeed a vague phrase that we would be exempt to ever closer union without some concrete force as to how that would occur. A change to voting systems, a return of our pre-Lisbon vetoes, an explicit opt-out etc ... but all that was missing.MarqueeMark said:
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?Richard_Nabavi said:
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.Nigelb said:Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
We were supposed to be exempt from the social charter originally then the Working Time Directive was put in place affecting us by labelling it as health and safety rather than social. Without any explicit powers the EU would simply not recognise anything going forwards as being Ever Closer Union and so we would not be able to opt out of it.0 -
Why's it a big ask when its largely how things have worked in the EU for about 40 years?FF43 said:
I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.Anorak said:
No I understand that.FF43 said:
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.Anorak said:
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).FF43 said:
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.CarlottaVance said:No kidding......
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/970931788829904896
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.
Lately there's been a drive to harmonise everything but the principle worked fine for decades and ought to be able to be put back in place subject to some sort of disputes mechanism.0 -
-
It was his member that got him into trouble in the first place.HYUFD said:
Presumably will be literally '1 member, 1 vote'GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
That gag - and better - were made here within minutes of her standing up.Scott_P said:0 -
Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.0 -
I know people used to brick up cats in the walls of their houses for good luck. Why not try it with Tories?Scott_P said:0 -
Apologies - I'd (inexcusably) forgotten you, Richard.Richard_Nabavi said:
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.Nigelb said:Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
And I would tend to agree with you that the deal was more consequential than those who rubbished it claimed - but it was nonetheless significantly less than we had been led to expect, and the lack of legally binding commitments, as opposed to statements of principle, allowed any doubts to be magnified.0 -
That raises the question, why are we diverging? Arguably it's worse. If you are converging, it's easier to accept two parties for historical reasons achieved the same effect in different ways. Your point is valid for the part that stays the same. The part we want to change is the problem.Richard_Nabavi said:
Whilst that's true, the situation is very unusual in that we start from 100% alignment of regulations, so what we're discussing is managing potential disputes over divergence.FF43 said:I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.
0 -
Window tax alertScott_P said:0 -
This looks encouraging:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/06/north-korea-promises-not-use-nuclear-weapons-against-south-border/
Pyongyang had indicated that it would not need to keep its nuclear weapons if military threats against the country are resolved and it receives a credible security guarantee, said the South Korean envoy.
Possible peace in Korea ?0 -
-
Because thanks to common rules and ECJ jurisdiction, EU states have near 100% product alignment. Cassis de Dijon is rare.Philip_Thompson said:
Why's it a big ask when its largely how things have worked in the EU for about 40 years?FF43 said:
I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.Anorak said:
No I understand that.FF43 said:
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.Anorak said:Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.
Lately there's been a drive to harmonise everything but the principle worked fine for decades and ought to be able to be put back in place subject to some sort of disputes mechanism.0 -
If only Stephen King had lived long enough......SandyRentool said:
I know people used to brick up cats in the walls of their houses for good luck. Why not try it with Tories?Scott_P said:
0 -
She's doing a far better job of laying those bricks than the ones that were behind her.....Scott_P said:0 -
Will Henry Bolton be hooking up with Senator Pauline Hanson?FrancisUrquhart said:
His girlfriends visions of one nation might be a bit different to others.GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
Oh. Better call it Two Nations then,brendan16 said:
Will Henry Bolton be hooking up with Senator Pauline Hanson?FrancisUrquhart said:
His girlfriends visions of one nation might be a bit different to others.GIN1138 said:I see that odd-ball Henry Bolton is setting up the "One Nation" Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-433017730 -
"Next leader of the LibDems" wibbling about boys wearing skirts on the Daily Politics.
Get a grip.0 -
EU law doesn't prevent you from discriminating against your OWN products and people. A subtle but important point of law. That's why foreign spouses of UK citizens can be denied residence but wives of EU citizens can't. Also why Scotland can charge university fees to English students, but not German ones.Philip_Thompson said:Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.0 -
She's against the New Romantics?SandyRentool said:"Next leader of the LibDems" wibbling about boys wearing skirts on the Daily Politics.
Get a grip.0 -
??????MarqueeMark said:
If only Stephen King had lived long enough......SandyRentool said:
I know people used to brick up cats in the walls of their houses for good luck. Why not try it with Tories?Scott_P said:0 -
Indeed but the point is that the principle is still alive so there's no reason we can't sign a trade deal backed up by that principle.FF43 said:
EU law doesn't prevent you from discriminating against your OWN products and people. A subtle but important point of law. That's why foreign spouses of UK citizens can be denied residence but wives of EU citizens can't. Also why Scotland can charge university fees to English students, but not German ones.Philip_Thompson said:Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.
0 -
As we Doctors are inclined to say: There's a lot of it about!SandyRentool said:"Next leader of the LibDems" wibbling about boys wearing skirts on the Daily Politics.
Get a grip.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/970684594193403904?s=19
0 -
Europe plans special tax for Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon
Bruno Le Maire, France's minister for the economy, has revealed that a plan to levy a special tax on Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon will soon be revealed by European authorities.
Le Maire told French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche "A European directive will be unveiled in the coming weeks, the minister reveals, and it will mark a considerable step forward."
The minister told the paper that a tax of between two and six per cent has been considered, with the proposal to be "closer to two than six."
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/05/europe_plans_special_tax_for_google_apple_facebook_and_amazon/0 -
Unless we aim for 100% convergence, difficult in practice. 100% convergence also in practice means us taking EU rule changes on a do as you are told basis. I rate the chances of that outcome relatively high, incidentally.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed but the point is that the principle is still alive so there's no reason we can't sign a trade deal backed up by that principle.FF43 said:
EU law doesn't prevent you from discriminating against your OWN products and people. A subtle but important point of law. That's why foreign spouses of UK citizens can be denied residence but wives of EU citizens can't. Also why Scotland can charge university fees to English students, but not German ones.Philip_Thompson said:Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.0 -
She should really get back to concentrating on the important stuff.SandyRentool said:"Next leader of the LibDems" wibbling about boys wearing skirts on the Daily Politics.
Get a grip.
Like this.
https://twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/9703874136200478720 -
I always thought Monster tasted a bit like piss...
Worker at canning factory supplying Monster energy drinks is marched off premises after URINATING in an empty can
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5467823/Coca-Cola-factory-worker-sacked-urinating-can.html
0 -
-
Well, yes. Unless he died and resurrected himself on the sly, he's still living in his incredibly creepy house in Maine.Stereotomy said:
??????MarqueeMark said:
If only Stephen King had lived long enough......SandyRentool said:
I know people used to brick up cats in the walls of their houses for good luck. Why not try it with Tories?Scott_P said:0 -
-
It's hard to see how anyone would be able to give them a credible security guarantee after what the Americans did to Gaddafi.Nigelb said:This looks encouraging:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/06/north-korea-promises-not-use-nuclear-weapons-against-south-border/
Pyongyang had indicated that it would not need to keep its nuclear weapons if military threats against the country are resolved and it receives a credible security guarantee, said the South Korean envoy.
Possible peace in Korea ?0 -
It's a bit of a fad - like being bisexual was in the 80s.Foxy said:
As we Doctors are inclined to say: There's a lot of it about!SandyRentool said:"Next leader of the LibDems" wibbling about boys wearing skirts on the Daily Politics.
Get a grip.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/970684594193403904?s=19
Next decade it will be about elective amputation so you can identify as a disabled person.
Come the 2030s it will be offensive to assume that a being is a human and not a dog or a cross between a monkey and a meerkat.0 -
Sent to work on a lager canning line instead.FrancisUrquhart said:I always thought Monster tasted a bit like piss...
Worker at canning factory supplying Monster energy drinks is marched off premises after URINATING in an empty can
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5467823/Coca-Cola-factory-worker-sacked-urinating-can.html0 -
Maybe people have always been like that, but feared having the living shit beaten out of them on a daily basis.TGOHF said:
It's a bit of a fad - like being bisexual was in the 80s.Foxy said:
As we Doctors are inclined to say: There's a lot of it about!SandyRentool said:"Next leader of the LibDems" wibbling about boys wearing skirts on the Daily Politics.
Get a grip.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/970684594193403904?s=19
Next decade it will be about elective amputation so you can identify as a disabled person.
Come the 2030s it will be offensive to assume that a being is a human and not a dog or a cross between a monkey and a meerkat.0 -
Anorak said:
Maybe people have always been like that, but feared having the living shit beaten out of them on a daily basis.TGOHF said:
It's a bit of a fad - like being bisexual was in the 80s.Foxy said:
As we Doctors are inclined to say: There's a lot of it about!SandyRentool said:"Next leader of the LibDems" wibbling about boys wearing skirts on the Daily Politics.
Get a grip.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/970684594193403904?s=19
Next decade it will be about elective amputation so you can identify as a disabled person.
Come the 2030s it will be offensive to assume that a being is a human and not a dog or a cross between a monkey and a meerkat.
"I wasn't born to have two legs and walk" - coming soon.
0 -
Or maybe were even to ashamed to admit to themselves how they felt because they felt "sick" or "wrong".Anorak said:
Maybe people have always been like that, but feared having the living shit beaten out of them on a daily basis.TGOHF said:
It's a bit of a fad - like being bisexual was in the 80s.Foxy said:
As we Doctors are inclined to say: There's a lot of it about!SandyRentool said:"Next leader of the LibDems" wibbling about boys wearing skirts on the Daily Politics.
Get a grip.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/970684594193403904?s=19
Next decade it will be about elective amputation so you can identify as a disabled person.
Come the 2030s it will be offensive to assume that a being is a human and not a dog or a cross between a monkey and a meerkat.0 -
So an independent Scotland would lose the right to charge english students fees ?FF43 said:
EU law doesn't prevent you from discriminating against your OWN products and people. A subtle but important point of law. That's why foreign spouses of UK citizens can be denied residence but wives of EU citizens can't. Also why Scotland can charge university fees to English students, but not German ones.Philip_Thompson said:Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.0 -
Ha. I've always thought Budweiser required almost no bodily processing between glass and bowl.SandyRentool said:
Sent to work on a lager canning line instead.FrancisUrquhart said:I always thought Monster tasted a bit like piss...
Worker at canning factory supplying Monster energy drinks is marched off premises after URINATING in an empty can
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5467823/Coca-Cola-factory-worker-sacked-urinating-can.html0 -
Better (16 years) late than never......williamglenn said:0 -
Too late: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meet-real-life-mermaids-giving-9645409TGOHF said:Anorak said:
Maybe people have always been like that, but feared having the living shit beaten out of them on a daily basis.TGOHF said:
It's a bit of a fad - like being bisexual was in the 80s.Foxy said:
As we Doctors are inclined to say: There's a lot of it about!SandyRentool said:"Next leader of the LibDems" wibbling about boys wearing skirts on the Daily Politics.
Get a grip.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/970684594193403904?s=19
Next decade it will be about elective amputation so you can identify as a disabled person.
Come the 2030s it will be offensive to assume that a being is a human and not a dog or a cross between a monkey and a meerkat.
"I wasn't born to have two legs and walk" - coming soon.0 -
-
If both Scotland and rUK are in the EU, yes.Pulpstar said:
So an independent Scotland would lose the right to charge english students fees ?FF43 said:
EU law doesn't prevent you from discriminating against your OWN products and people. A subtle but important point of law. That's why foreign spouses of UK citizens can be denied residence but wives of EU citizens can't. Also why Scotland can charge university fees to English students, but not German ones.Philip_Thompson said:Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.0 -
Indeed. Two sides of the same societal coin.Philip_Thompson said:
Or maybe were even to ashamed to admit to themselves how they felt because they felt "sick" or "wrong".Anorak said:
Maybe people have always been like that, but feared having the living shit beaten out of them on a daily basis.TGOHF said:
It's a bit of a fad - like being bisexual was in the 80s.Foxy said:
As we Doctors are inclined to say: There's a lot of it about!SandyRentool said:"Next leader of the LibDems" wibbling about boys wearing skirts on the Daily Politics.
Get a grip.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/970684594193403904?s=19
Next decade it will be about elective amputation so you can identify as a disabled person.
Come the 2030s it will be offensive to assume that a being is a human and not a dog or a cross between a monkey and a meerkat.0 -
BoZo threatening England might pull out of the World Cup.
Saves the embarrassment perhaps...0 -
Perhaps we can see a few hundred paras dressed as normal supporters who 'accidentally' end up in the wrong bar.Scott_P said:BoZo threatening England might pull out of the World Cup.
Saves the embarrassment perhaps...
Would be pleasing to see the Russian ultra-nationalists given both a literal and metaphorical bloody nose.0 -
That article is utterly horrifying.Foxy said:
As we Doctors are inclined to say: There's a lot of it about!SandyRentool said:"Next leader of the LibDems" wibbling about boys wearing skirts on the Daily Politics.
Get a grip.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/970684594193403904?s=19
Must be a very difficult issue for parents and medical services.0
