politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes make it 6/4 that there’ll be another Brexit referend
Comments
-
https://thesecretbarrister.com/about/isam said:
Are they a barrister?148grss said:
And a barrister that has a long history of talking about the failings of this government in spending regarding criminal justice is what, just another expert to be ignored? Just because they're writing in the Guardian, doesn't mean one shouldn't look at what they have to say.ozymandias said:
Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.148grss said:0 -
-
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.Byronic said:
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I agree.Casino_Royale said:
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.Theuniondivvie said:When even a Scottish Tory thinks you're fcuking up, you're really fcuking up
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1183712603803136000?s=20.
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.
0 -
Everyone wants more spending on what they care about. Unfortunately we also have trillions in debt and a deficit even after austerity. So unless you are proposing cutting something else to pay for the extra spending you want it's a meaningless comment.148grss said:
And a barrister that has a long history of talking about the failings of this government in spending regarding criminal justice is what, just another expert to be ignored? Just because they're writing in the Guardian, doesn't mean one shouldn't look at what they have to say.ozymandias said:
Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.148grss said:0 -
Yes.isam said:
Are they a barrister?148grss said:
And a barrister that has a long history of talking about the failings of this government in spending regarding criminal justice is what, just another expert to be ignored? Just because they're writing in the Guardian, doesn't mean one shouldn't look at what they have to say.ozymandias said:
Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.148grss said:0 -
Big_G_NorthWales said:
Not really headlines.Scott_P said:
It has been the case since the Benn Act but 41% supporting no deal in today's YouGov and more blaming the EU than UK if talks fail he may well be in a better political place than many think
So a minority support No Deal. Why is the government so intent on it then?0 -
Peter, she should be forced to something for the shedloads of cash she and her parasitic family rob off us.Peter_the_Punter said:The Government is embarrassing the Queen by dragging her into the political arena.
0 -
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.Scott_P said:1 -
I wouldn't worry, 95%ish of them will have made their minds up about it before seeing the detail.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234
Nowhere near long enough surely?
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.0 -
The usual drivel from unionists, Spain , currency and borders. All have been proven to be bullshit.williamglenn said:
There’s no need for one. If England wants to leave the single market and customs union there can be a normal customs border.Alanbrooke said:
I look forward to the scottish backstop discussionswilliamglenn said:
Spain has already said they have no issue with Scotland joining the EU as long as independence is achieved constitutionally.Pulpstar said:Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants
The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.
Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.0 -
Or themselves, or their criminal confederates.Charles said:
I don't mind Presidents pardoning Turkey (IIRC its only one). I do mind them facilitating Turkey-led genocidekle4 said:
I'm sure they know it looks ridiculous. What does that matter?Noo said:
It's a morris dancer, wrapped inside a tapestry, all swaddled in a plastic itch cone. Do you think they know they look like a bunch of tossers?Theuniondivvie said:Europe: That UK, eh? It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, all swaddled in a load of Ruritanian pish.
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1183673365359411200?s=20
Next step let's complaining about the US president pardoning Turkeys.0 -
That's why I sometimes can't help wondering whether Alanbrooke and others here are not what they seem, but people trying to make Brexiteers look as stupid as possible.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234
Nowhere near long enough surely?
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
The reason I find that difficult to believe is that they go so far beyond what any sane person would consider plausible.0 -
The Spanish general election takes place on 10th November. It'll be interesting to see what happens in Catalonia.ozymandias said:
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.Byronic said:
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I agree.Casino_Royale said:
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.Theuniondivvie said:When even a Scottish Tory thinks you're fcuking up, you're really fcuking up
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1183712603803136000?s=20.
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where's_Wally?nichomar said:
Enlighten me pleaseAnorak said:On a lighter note, I like this a lot.
https://twitter.com/UncleDuke1969/status/10561737950341857280 -
How many MPs votes are going to depend upon reading the deal?Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234
Nowhere near long enough surely?
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.0 -
Yeah, who here actually thinks MPs are going to read the full text of the agreement?Pulpstar said:
I wouldn't worry, 95%ish of them will have made their minds up about it before seeing the detail.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234
Nowhere near long enough surely?
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.0 -
All cowards G , trying to hold onto their Empire, they can go F*** themselves. Given the union is just a treaty , why would they not just revoke the treaty, these pygmies will not stop it for sure.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Jo Swinson rejected it yesterday so all three Westminster leaders reject Section 30 and will do so at the next GE no doubtTheuniondivvie said:
I'm not really aware of anyone saying it would happen automatically, just that it would be easier than if we'd gone indy in 2014. I think the Spanish veto would only really be in play if there was an 'illegal' referendum, hence BJ and chums' desperation to avoid a section 30.Pulpstar said:Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants
The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.
Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.0 -
Only 33% support revoke and Remain in the same poll and 41% can give a Tory majority under FPTP.Cyclefree said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Not really headlines.Scott_P said:
It has been the case since the Benn Act but 41% supporting no deal in today's YouGov and more blaming the EU than UK if talks fail he may well be in a better political place than many think
So a minority support No Deal. Why is the government so intent on it then?
Boris wants a Deal but is prepared to go for No Deal if necessary to deliver Brexit0 -
Do you need to show photo ID in order to collect welfare benefits?-1
-
Thanks it’s been 30+ years since I had to look for him and he might of even been Waldo thenStark_Dawning said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where's_Wally?nichomar said:
Enlighten me pleaseAnorak said:On a lighter note, I like this a lot.
https://twitter.com/UncleDuke1969/status/1056173795034185728
0 -
..0
-
-
Boris is trying to rig the next election but I think CCHQ might have taken aim at its own foot with this scheme imported from the USA GOP. Driving licences might skew Tory but I'd want to see evidence for that, and more so for passports which might be held by youngish holidaymakers and muslim Hajj pilgrims, which groups tilt towards Labour. Has someone got the numbers?Philip_Thompson said:
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.Scott_P said:0 -
All those MPs have to leave to go and support their favourite football teams?rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234
Nowhere near long enough surely?0 -
The Guardian recognises that Patel is a posturing hypocrite.ozymandias said:
Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.148grss said:
Did you read the linked article ? Your comment is curiously absent any kind of rebuttal.0 -
Of course PM Boris and Westminster can now block any indyref2 to their hearts content and still seem reasonable thanks to the actions of the Spanish courts and Government today in jailing Catalan nationalist leaders for holding an unauthorised referendum.Pulpstar said:Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants
The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.
Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.
Thankyou Madrid!0 -
Perhaps the funniest thing I've seen in recent days was the new report suggesting that Johnson is now terrified of No Deal - presumably because someone has finally explained to him what it would mean.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Not really headlines.Scott_P said:
It has been the case since the Benn Act but 41% supporting no deal in today's YouGov and more blaming the EU than UK if talks fail he may well be in a better political place than many think0 -
Alanbrooke is exactly what he says he is , a very intelligent businessman with his own companies.Chris said:
That's why I sometimes can't help wondering whether Alanbrooke and others here are not what they seem, but people trying to make Brexiteers look as stupid as possible.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234
Nowhere near long enough surely?
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
The reason I find that difficult to believe is that they go so far beyond what any sane person would consider plausible.0 -
RTFA.Philip_Thompson said:
Everyone wants more spending on what they care about. Unfortunately we also have trillions in debt and a deficit even after austerity. So unless you are proposing cutting something else to pay for the extra spending you want it's a meaningless comment.148grss said:
And a barrister that has a long history of talking about the failings of this government in spending regarding criminal justice is what, just another expert to be ignored? Just because they're writing in the Guardian, doesn't mean one shouldn't look at what they have to say.ozymandias said:
Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.148grss said:
It points out that plenty of cash can be found for a policy which will in all likelihood be entirely ineffective, outside of providing Patel with a headline.0 -
You need ID to pick up a parcel from the post office. Perhaps the post office are preventing people from receiving certain items of mail?AndyJS said:Do you need to show photo ID in order to collect welfare benefits?
0 -
Remember that this is the same Kingdom of Spain which will have a veto over the conditions that an independent Scotland would have once it entered negotiations to re-enter the EU. Wonder if that has been wargamed at the NatFest?ozymandias said:
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.Byronic said:
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I agree.Casino_Royale said:
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.Theuniondivvie said:When even a Scottish Tory thinks you're fcuking up, you're really fcuking up
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1183712603803136000?s=20.
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.0 -
Many elderly people don't have either.DecrepitJohnL said:
Boris is trying to rig the next election but I think CCHQ might have taken aim at its own foot with this scheme imported from the USA GOP. Driving licences might skew Tory but I'd want to see evidence for that, and more so for passports which might be held by youngish holidaymakers and muslim Hajj pilgrims, which groups tilt towards Labour. Has someone got the numbers?Philip_Thompson said:
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.Scott_P said:0 -
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
The more I research the issue of dealing with risk in complex adaptive systems, them more I appreciate the damage of analysis paralysis. Surely, we've been past that point in the UK where inaction and uncertainty is what is causing the bulk of the damage for at least a year, perhaps more like two.
There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.1 -
You can use a Bank Card as ID at the post office.ozymandias said:
You need ID to pick up a parcel from the post office. Perhaps the post office are preventing people from receiving certain items of mail?AndyJS said:Do you need to show photo ID in order to collect welfare benefits?
Is that going to be allowed as a form of ID to vote? (Genuine question)0 -
dyedwoolie said:
Oh pish , I'm not letting facts get in the way of my rantingSandpit said:
To be fair to him, he did write the piece.dyedwoolie said:
And The 'My political persuasion is not so Secret Barrister' retweets it double shockerozymandias said:
Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.148grss said:
Why break a longstanding habit ?
0 -
You really are as thick as mince and nasty with it.HYUFD said:
Of course PM Boris and Westminster can now block any indyref2 to their hearts content and still seem reasonable thanks to the actions of the Spanish courts and Government today in jailing Catalan nationalist leaders for holding an unauthorised referendum.Pulpstar said:Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants
The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.
Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.
Thankyou Madrid!0 -
Ah the Diceman school of management.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
The more I research the issue of dealing with risk in complex adaptive systems, them more I appreciate the damage of analysis paralysis. Surely, we've been past that point in the UK where inaction and uncertainty is what is causing the bulk of the damage for at least a year, perhaps more like two.
There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.0 -
You moron , the Spanish Government has already stated many times that it is none of their business and that they would NOT veto Scotland joining EU if it met the joining rules.Burgessian said:
Remember that this is the same Kingdom of Spain which will have a veto over the conditions that an independent Scotland would have once it entered negotiations to re-enter the EU. Wonder if that has been wargamed at the NatFest?ozymandias said:
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.Byronic said:
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I agree.Casino_Royale said:
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.Theuniondivvie said:When even a Scottish Tory thinks you're fcuking up, you're really fcuking up
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1183712603803136000?s=20.
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.0 -
Mr. CatMan, I'm not sure but in the pilot there was a long list of permissible types of ID, and if none were already owned a voter could simply ask the local council for one specifically for the purpose of voting.0
-
That's a bit of an understatement.Casino_Royale said:
The Secret Barrister is so Left-wing he makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Jacob Rees-Mogg.ozymandias said:
Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.148grss said:0 -
Far from it, being really nasty would be Boris passing a law jailing Sturgeon and the Scottish executive for trying to hold an unauthorised independence referendum as Madrid has done, instead Boris will just block an unauthorised referendummalcolmg said:
You really are as thick as mince and nasty with it.HYUFD said:
Of course PM Boris and Westminster can now block any indyref2 to their hearts content and still seem reasonable thanks to the actions of the Spanish courts and Government today in jailing Catalan nationalist leaders for holding an unauthorised referendum.Pulpstar said:Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants
The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.
Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.
Thankyou Madrid!
0 -
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.0 -
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234
Nowhere near long enough surely?
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html0 -
Not everyone has a bank card, driving licience or passport. Come to think about it they may not have a utility bill either. The poor will be impacted by an ID measure. Some people live in ways many on PB cannot comprehend.CatMan said:
You can use a Bank Card as ID at the post office.ozymandias said:
You need ID to pick up a parcel from the post office. Perhaps the post office are preventing people from receiving certain items of mail?AndyJS said:Do you need to show photo ID in order to collect welfare benefits?
Is that going to be allowed as a form of ID to vote? (Genuine question)0 -
If it’s effectively the same deal as before but with some amendments then Mark Up wouldChris said:
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
speed things up surely?0 -
The Catalan Football Federation suspends football matches throughout Catalonia.0
-
Apparently 25% don’t have driving license or passportChris said:
Many elderly people don't have either.DecrepitJohnL said:
Boris is trying to rig the next election but I think CCHQ might have taken aim at its own foot with this scheme imported from the USA GOP. Driving licences might skew Tory but I'd want to see evidence for that, and more so for passports which might be held by youngish holidaymakers and muslim Hajj pilgrims, which groups tilt towards Labour. Has someone got the numbers?Philip_Thompson said:
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.Scott_P said:0 -
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.1
-
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?Chris said:
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.0 -
0
-
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?Alanbrooke said:
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?0 -
Corbyn is appallingly bad at the despatch box0
-
Yes he is but who cares? He only needs a passable 10 seconds for the clipped video.dyedwoolie said:Corbyn is appallingly bad at the despatch box
0 -
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
Corbyn bigging up Pidcock in his speech.0
-
Chris said:
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Nope.Noo said:
Ah the Diceman school of management.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
The more I research the issue of dealing with risk in complex adaptive systems, them more I appreciate the damage of analysis paralysis. Surely, we've been past that point in the UK where inaction and uncertainty is what is causing the bulk of the damage for at least a year, perhaps more like two.
There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.0 -
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?Alanbrooke said:
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?Chris said:
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.0 -
There are going to be free alternatives, so people will just need to take the ten or so minutes to apply for it.The_Taxman said:
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
yebbut last time (2017) I went along to vote only to be told that I had already voted. There were several furiously busy phonecalls before I was allowed to vote. I didn't pursue the matter further (were they going to do so themselves?) but there is an argument for some kind of better identification process. There are unscrupulous people out there, sadly.The_Taxman said:
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
Maybe the current farrago goes back to the same treaty or were you too young to notice at the time ?Chris said:
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?Alanbrooke said:
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
You don’t even know whaffected by it.
Jesus wept.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Likewise since you lawyers all demand more time and studious contemplation , how come we keep signing up to things in EU summits at 4 in the morning when everyone is knackered and they all just want to go home ?
1 -
Can people apply online for these acceptable IDs, or only in person? Will councils, already trying to deal with the cuts by moving as much admin online as possible, be able to cope with people asking for IDs? Will central government give more resources to local governments for this added service, or will council tax increase? How much training will people who sit at voting booths be given so they know what is acceptable ID, and what is a fake ID? Will they also be given unconscious bias training? Will the national government do an advertising campaign telling people about the change and available IDs, or will this be down to local governments?Morris_Dancer said:
Voter ID laws are an answer to what question? We have no credible issue with voter fraud in this country. This is a solution begging a problem; it is nothing more than a continuation of the Cameroon model of making it harder to vote and disrupting young people and people who move often trying to exercise the franchise.0 -
And how will these voters prove their identity to the council, and why can't this alternative proof be used at the polling station?Morris_Dancer said:0 -
Someone else in a top hat, no doubtTOPPING said:
yebbut last time (2017) I went along to vote only to be told that I had already voted. There were several furiously busy phonecalls before I was allowed to vote. I didn't pursue the matter further (were they going to do so themselves?) but there is an argument for some kind of better identification process. There are unscrupulous people out there, sadly.The_Taxman said:
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.DecrepitJohnL said:
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
6/4 for Ref2?
There must have been worse bets but right now I can't think of any.
What's the opposite of fill your boots?0 -
You mean in ll the time youve been on PB youre only getting round to thinking about this now ?Chris said:
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?Alanbrooke said:
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?Chris said:
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.0 -
Yes of course they have I think you answered your own question.Chris said:
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.DecrepitJohnL said:
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
Knowing the type of people i refer to in earlier comments i doubt they have the capacity to plan ahead. People will just arrive at polling stations and get turned away. Surely if the way voting is undertaken is changed. It should be mandatory. You can always spoil the ballot...RobD said:
There are going to be free alternatives, so people will just need to take the ten or so minutes to apply for it.The_Taxman said:
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
Indeed, an interesting trio of graphs in this twitter thread.Chris said:
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.DecrepitJohnL said:
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
https://twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1183323171409334272?s=190 -
I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal!Chris said:
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?Alanbrooke said:
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?Chris said:
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.
* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy18830 -
You're almost raving now. Try calming down, lying in a darkened room for a while, and attempting to re-connect with reality.Alanbrooke said:
Maybe the current farrago goes back to the same treaty or were you too young to notice at the time ?Chris said:
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?Alanbrooke said:
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
You don’t even know whaffected by it.
Jesus wept.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Likewise since you lawyers all demand more time and studious contemplation , how come we keep signing up to things in EU summits at 4 in the morning when everyone is knackered and they all just want to go home ?0 -
Sure, I am just saying that some people lack capacity to plan ahead.TOPPING said:
yebbut last time (2017) I went along to vote only to be told that I had already voted. There were several furiously busy phonecalls before I was allowed to vote. I didn't pursue the matter further (were they going to do so themselves?) but there is an argument for some kind of better identification process. There are unscrupulous people out there, sadly.The_Taxman said:
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
Not many of us around any more.RobD said:
Someone else in a top hat, no doubtTOPPING said:
yebbut last time (2017) I went along to vote only to be told that I had already voted. There were several furiously busy phonecalls before I was allowed to vote. I didn't pursue the matter further (were they going to do so themselves?) but there is an argument for some kind of better identification process. There are unscrupulous people out there, sadly.The_Taxman said:
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
Syrian state media shows Syrian government troops arriving in Kurdish held towns on the Turkish border after an agreement between the Kurdish administration and the Assad regime to contain Turkish aggression
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-500391061 -
I can imagine a scenario where you get a warning the first time, with instructions of how to proceed next time. After a few elections it’ll be second nature.The_Taxman said:
Knowing the type of people i refer to in earlier comments i doubt they have the capacity to plan ahead. People will just arrive at polling stations and get turned away. Surely if the way voting is undertaken is changed. It should be mandatory. You can always spoil the ballot...RobD said:
There are going to be free alternatives, so people will just need to take the ten or so minutes to apply for it.The_Taxman said:
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
+1 I agree. Brexit is very complicated. Just Leaving is not viable as some people advocate.Noo said:
I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal!Chris said:
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?Alanbrooke said:
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?Chris said:
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.
* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy18830 -
DecrepitJohnL said:
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
Whilst on the surface it seems simply a matter of applying for said ID card but it’s extra hassle, it possibly problematic of those scared of official forms and most likely being remembering where you put the damn thing last year or even five years ago0 -
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.Chris said:
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?Alanbrooke said:
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?Cyclefree said:Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?0 -
Yes I appreciate that. On balance I like the system as is. Then again for those people perhaps they could plaster the message all over the motorways like they are doing for Brexit: "Want to vote? Register now."The_Taxman said:
Sure, I am just saying that some people lack capacity to plan ahead.TOPPING said:
yebbut last time (2017) I went along to vote only to be told that I had already voted. There were several furiously busy phonecalls before I was allowed to vote. I didn't pursue the matter further (were they going to do so themselves?) but there is an argument for some kind of better identification process. There are unscrupulous people out there, sadly.The_Taxman said:
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
My parents don't have either.nichomar said:
Apparently 25% don’t have driving license or passportChris said:
Many elderly people don't have either.DecrepitJohnL said:
Boris is trying to rig the next election but I think CCHQ might have taken aim at its own foot with this scheme imported from the USA GOP. Driving licences might skew Tory but I'd want to see evidence for that, and more so for passports which might be held by youngish holidaymakers and muslim Hajj pilgrims, which groups tilt towards Labour. Has someone got the numbers?Philip_Thompson said:
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.Scott_P said:0 -
No - answering the question would require some research. Foxy just posted some relevant data. Perhaps there is more.nichomar said:
Yes of course they have I think you answered your own question.Chris said:
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.DecrepitJohnL said:
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
Fascinating! So there might be an effect of suppressing the Leave vote in a future referendum? I can't deny the frisson of pleasure that this causes me, but no, it's wrong to think in those terms.Foxy said:
Indeed, an interesting trio of graphs in this twitter thread.Chris said:
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.DecrepitJohnL said:
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
https://twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1183323171409334272?s=190 -
Next Lab. leaderArtist said:Corbyn bigging up Pidcock in his speech.
0 -
Eh ?malcolmg said:
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.Chris said:
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?Alanbrooke said:
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?Cyclefree said:Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.0 -
?malcolmg said:
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.Chris said:
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?Alanbrooke said:
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?Cyclefree said:Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
They've had "months and months" to read an agreement that hasn't been reached yet, let alone written down?
You are a follower of the late Dr J. B. Rhine, I presume?0 -
I was looking for this stat earlier. Do you have a source (apologies if it was cut off your quote)nichomar said:
Apparently 25% don’t have driving license or passportChris said:
Many elderly people don't have either.DecrepitJohnL said:
Boris is trying to rig the next election but I think CCHQ might have taken aim at its own foot with this scheme imported from the USA GOP. Driving licences might skew Tory but I'd want to see evidence for that, and more so for passports which might be held by youngish holidaymakers and muslim Hajj pilgrims, which groups tilt towards Labour. Has someone got the numbers?Philip_Thompson said:
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.Scott_P said:0 -
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.Nigelb said:
Eh ?malcolmg said:
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.Chris said:
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?Alanbrooke said:
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?Cyclefree said:Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.oxfordsimon said:
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.GIN1138 said:
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.0 -
An attempt to suppress the Brexit party vote, then ?nichomar said:
Yes of course they have I think you answered your own question.Chris said:
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.DecrepitJohnL said:
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.AndyJS said:I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
0 -
You thought we were talking about whether MPs would vote this weekend to approve Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement?malcolmg said:
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.Nigelb said:
Eh ?malcolmg said:
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.Chris said:
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?Alanbrooke said:
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?Cyclefree said:Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
Seriously?0 -
Sounds like Nancy Pelosi. "We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it"Chris said:
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?Alanbrooke said:
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?Chris said:
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.1 -
If that's really the case, which is... unlikely, then it would probably take a good few hours to make sure it really is the WA, and not something similar with a few strange clauses sneaked in.malcolmg said:
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.Nigelb said:
Eh ?malcolmg said:
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.Chris said:
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?Alanbrooke said:
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?Cyclefree said:Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.0 -
< /irony >Chris said:
You thought we were talking about whether MPs would vote this weekend to approve Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement?malcolmg said:
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.Nigelb said:
Eh ?malcolmg said:
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.Chris said:
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?Alanbrooke said:
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?Cyclefree said:Alanbrooke said:
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothingCyclefree said:
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.edmundintokyo said:
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
Seriously?0 -
This sounds suspiciously like Tony Wilson's interpretation of praxis:MTimT said:There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.
In the Channel Four television documentary New Order: Play At Home, Factory Records owner Tony Wilson describes praxis as “Doing something because you have the urge to do it, inventing the reasons later.” Elsewhere, Wilson has been quoted as saying “You learn why you do something by doing it. The Theory of Independence was discovered in the act of putting out your own records, doing very well, being friends with your artists and not ripping them off. And by 1981, we were all doing it.” Which perfectly sums up the Factory ethos.
Given that Factory Records went spectacularly bust after sending the Happy Mondays to Barbados to discover crack cocaine, I'm not sure this is a great precedent.0 -
Empty your bowels ?kinabalu said:6/4 for Ref2?
There must have been worse bets but right now I can't think of any.
What's the opposite of fill your boots?0 -
Can anyone really be so stupid?MTimT said:
Sounds like Nancy Pelosi. "We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it"Chris said:
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?Alanbrooke said:
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?Chris said:
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.MTimT said:
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.Cyclefree said:
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
You have to read it to know what's in it.0 -
You've mentioned this several times. Are you going on general opinion in the Labour party that you know of, or just a hunch from a distance?bigjohnowls said:
Next Lab. leaderArtist said:Corbyn bigging up Pidcock in his speech.
0
