I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
Unless I am missing something, Sanders isn't banning people from buying private healthcare if they want it. He wants to force everyone to be covered by a Government specified Single Payer system. The Culinary Union and others think that this will result in the substitution of a hard won high quality healthcare plan by a public system with worse coverage.
:
The reason that Sanders pan will end private insurance is about costs.
Medicare prices are considerably below "regular" prices in American health care. As far as we can work out "prices" - the entire health industry in the US is a tangled scnarl of special interests and strange legal provisions. In some states a doctor is not *allowed* to quote an actual X for Y price...
Anyway, many doctors state that they do Medicare work on a semi-charitable basis and would not do 100% Medicare work.
It has often been observed that America spends far more on healthcare than the various free-at-the-point-of-delivery government scheme around the world. This is in part because of the no-holds spending attitude of the medical system - more is better, up to the limits of insurance. So you have ridiculous costs for treating a portion of the population.
A government insurance scheme that attempted to provide such care levels to the entire population would be unaffordable. So Sanders is proposing (in effect) to crunch the prices to Medicare levels. Which the doctors and hospitals wont accept.
At this point some people talked of forcing the medical system to accept the government mandated prices. Sanders is going the other route - by eliminating private insurance, this leaves Medicare-For-All and cash payment as the sole sources of funding. So the medical system would have to lump it, or go out of business.
This is the biggest problem for his ideas - apart from collapsing a large industry (the health insurance system), it would mean a massive squeeze on pay and conditions for everyone in the American medical system - more work, less pay.
There would also be a a massive squeeze in the nature of care - doctors from Europe regard the American system as performing unnecessary tests and procedures to the point of malpractice, American doctors often regard European levels of care as terribly constrained.
You were paying the whole £350m? Feck me, no wonder you've a feather up the arse about it.
Snap!
It's actually an indication of how personal it is for brexiteers: 'I' pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use, 'I' have had my identity and sovereignty taken from me, 'I' no longer have access to toasters that get my toast soldiers just the way I like 'em.
#Solipsistsrus
I'd say it was more like "I would rather not have to compete with the rest of the EU for my job, and am prepared to forgo the opportunity to leave my family and friends behind and ply my trade in Eastern Europe to secure that"
It would be more accurate to say "(most of) Europe" rather than "Eastern Europe" but yes, that's a fair summary of at least some Leavers. The somewhat poignant thing for at least some Remainers is that they were OK with the first part and quite looking forward to the second...
I actually quite like the idea of Freedom of Movement within a bloc of countries, but they have to be of similar economies, and roughly the same amount of people from each country would have to be happy to live in the others. The problem with EU FoM for the UK was that, when Blair allowed the A8 accession, the ratio of ins and outs from and to the new countries was wrong
When you are driving a Roller, you dont join a car swap club where the others all have Allegros!
Fair point.
I think any rights that sound lovely in theory and in the abstract cause a problem when they hit the rocks of reality but their proponents still insist on being dogmatic about them
Free movement is fine until it's a problem, and then it isn't.
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
It’s the same people writing the same old whiny shit while apparently being privy to the precise thinking of the government.
The last I heard it was perfectly reasonable to criticise the Government and hold it to account. If you want to stand up and praise Boris Johnson to the skies, be my guest, you have that right.
Perhaps some of us have yet to appreciate the sheer brilliance of the Johnson-Cummings alliance and have yet to sign up to the transformation of Britain from a failing outpost shackled to a dying centrist elite political bloc to...to... whatever it's going to be with the sunlit uplands, the free trade deals, the streets paved with gold and no one ever having the wobbles.
A number of posters seem to believe that it is self-evident that Cummings/ Johnson/ Brexit are going to transform Britain into some wondrous global super -state and anyone who doesn't "believe" in the project is a whinging arse only interested in running down our glorious nation.
It's been the same since the referendum when anyone who dared to suggest there may be downsides to Brexit was howled down with cries of "Project Fear".
Fortunately we are rapidly approaching the time when the talking ends and something has to be delivered.
It's curious how the articles of faith have changed, mostly in a diminishing sense, over the years. First it was faith in the vast and inherent wickedness of the EU; then in the potential of a buccaneering and global Britain; then in Theresa and the British negotiators' ability to run rings around silly foreigners. Now it's all about Dom and Boris - magic brew and the thrill of smashing everything up if all else fails. It's been a miserable tale.
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
IIRC, the Boris Island airport was either on or very close to another wartime ammunition disaster. Some supply ship with so much ammo aboard that they still worry about nearby towns if it ever goes off...
Perhaps Boris has a new technique for used ammo clean up?
286 × 2,000 lb (910 kg) high explosive bombs 4,439 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs of various types 1,925 × 500 lb (230 kg) bombs 2,815 fragmentation bombs and bomb clusters Various explosive booster charges Various smoke bombs, including white phosphorus bombs Various pyrotechnic signals
It is entirely a decision for the Northern Ireland Secretary whether to hold a border poll under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which implemented the GFA actually
Not entirely, I believe involved parties can ask for a judicial review if they think the NI secretary isn't playing a straight bat. Of course judicial review is now under review itself...
:
The problem is not that the courts have too much power. In any civilised system they must have power to quash decisions that are illegal or unauthorised by law. The problem is that the courts have been too ready to treat acts of the executive as illegal or unauthorised because they take a different view of the merits of the underlying policy.
This problem is particularly acute in cases decided under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case law on the convention requires the courts to weigh up competing policy considerations and arrive at their own view of the public interest. It is not unfair to say that this is politics by other means.“
I heard him give a shorter version of this view on R4 (I also listened to at least one of his Reith lectures). As a mere civilian I thought he came across as extremely thoughtful and definitely his own man.
I suppose my (again civilian) view is that if the courts don't arbitrate on these issues, who will? Also will this not be a licence for future governments to cry 'this is political' every time they reach a bump in the road with legal and/or constitutional implications? The right of the NI secretary to call for or withhold a border poll might be a case in point.
Part of the problem is the inability of some people to see that their views are not Truth! & Justice! but a point of view. Rational perhaps. Good possibly. But not the sole repository of Right.
For example, there is a group of progressive lawyers I sometimes drink with.
They (to a man and woman) want to de-criminalise completely minor crime - not even a court appearance for shop lifting etc. When I mentioned the rights of shop keepers, the invective that was cast upon their heads was... interesting. I then suggested that if society withdrew legal protection for property, then property owners might well resort to the law of Hot Trod*. To which they replied that anyone doing so was evil scum and should be harshly dealt with.
Their vision of government is not by/with/or/from the people. The people are cattle to be organised.
I guess we're all stuck in the subjective/objective matrix to an extent, recognising that is the first step to a teeny sliver of enlightenment.
*I know vaguely what Hot Trod is so have refrained from patter about lowered suspension and oversized carbs.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Speak for yourself. The CJEU shares my values more so than the current Government.
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
Making the NHS so good that people will not bother with private health is an unobtainable socialist utopian dream
Its a good enough ‘goal’ or ‘mission statement’ though.
My impression is that the benefits of private healthcare are essentially:
More consultation time for minor ailments or concerns Convenience for appointment times Comfort/luxury after operations
On clinical outcomes there will obviously be examples of good and bad practice whether NHS or private but my impression is that they are of similar quality.
Of the 3 clear benefits I can see, not sure we should be spending much more to offer those as part of the NHS, social care should be a much bigger priority instead. Obviously if we can improve scheduling and appointments with more efficient logistics thats great.
You missed out the biggest single benefit of no rationing by way of waiting list. Changing that would involve spending a great deal of money.
The primary reason that good white collar jobs include private health insurance is the waiting times to see top consultants (essentially within the week, if you go private). The secondary is the non-cancelation/delay of "minor" operations.
That has been the formal justification for the cost/benefit in a number of companies I have worked in. It's cheaper to get people seen that week and get their in-grown toenails fixed by Friday....
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - then?
It's reciprocal
If view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You should be glad we're out of the EU then, since habeas corpus doesn't exist in most of their legal systems and indeed would have started to have been chipped away by the ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
Wrong. You don't understand the Lisbon Treaty, and makes the ECHR rulings justiciable by the ECJ through the CFR of the EU.
Don't try and talk down to me like a 'dumb Brexiter' when I already know more about this subject than you.
No, you don't. And please do not try and swat away my incovenient arguments by claiming I am talking down to you. I am not. I am just saying things you do not like hearing. That is different.
The ECJ has never had the ability to interfere in domestic UK criminal cases and there are no circumstances under which it can limit habeas corpus or has ever been asked to.
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
It is entirely a decision for the Northern Ireland Secretary whether to hold a border poll under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which implemented the GFA actually
:
:
The problem is not that the courts have too much power. In any civilised system they must have power to quash decisions that are illegal or unauthorised by law. The problem is that the courts have been too ready to treat acts of the executive as illegal or unauthorised because they take a different view of the merits of the underlying policy.
This problem is particularly acute in cases decided under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case law on the convention requires the courts to weigh up competing policy considerations and arrive at their own view of the public interest. It is not unfair to say that this is politics by other means.“
I heard him give a shorter version of this view on R4 (I also listened to at least one of his Reith lectures). As a mere civilian I thought he came across as extremely thoughtful and definitely his own man.
I suppose my (again civilian) view is that if the courts don't arbitrate on these issues, who will? Also will this not be a licence for future governments to cry 'this is political' every time they reach a bump in the road with legal and/or constitutional implications? The right of the NI secretary to call for or withhold a border poll might be a case in point.
Part of the problem is the inability of some people to see that their views are not Truth! & Justice! but a point of view. Rational perhaps. Good possibly. But not the sole repository of Right.
For example, there is a group of progressive lawyers I sometimes drink with.
They (to a man and woman) want to de-criminalise completely minor crime - not even a court appearance for shop lifting etc. When I mentioned the rights of shop keepers, the invective that was cast upon their heads was... interesting. I then suggested that if society withdrew legal protection for property, then property owners might well resort to the law of Hot Trod*. To which they replied that anyone doing so was evil scum and should be harshly dealt with.
Their vision of government is not by/with/or/from the people. The people are cattle to be organised.
I guess we're all stuck in the subjective/objective matrix to an extent, recognising that is the first step to a teeny sliver of enlightenment.
*I know vaguely what Hot Trod is so have refrained from patter about lowered suspension and oversized carbs.
Thank you. I now have a vision of Bruce Campbell/Ash pursuing evil doers across the border in a Dodge Charger, laughing manically.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
How old were you in 1993, out of interest?
I would have been too young to vote then and I wasn't alive in 1975. One day I'll be dead and ineligible for future votes too.
That doesn't detract from my point.
In which case, I was never given a vote on whether to be a UK citizen or not. It is exactly the same argument.
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
Making the NHS so good that people will not bother with private health is an unobtainable socialist utopian dream
Its a good enough ‘goal’ or ‘mission statement’ though.
My impression is that the benefits of private healthcare are essentially:
More consultation time for minor ailments or concerns Convenience for appointment times Comfort/luxury after operations
On clinical outcomes there will obviously be examples of good and bad practice whether NHS or private but my impression is that they are of similar quality.
Of the 3 clear benefits I can see, not sure we should be spending much more to offer those as part of the NHS, social care should be a much bigger priority instead. Obviously if we can improve scheduling and appointments with more efficient logistics thats great.
You missed out the biggest single benefit of no rationing by way of waiting list. Changing that would involve spending a great deal of money.
The primary reason that good white collar jobs include private health insurance is the waiting times to see top consultants (essentially within the week, if you go private). The secondary is the non-cancelation/delay of "minor" operations.
That has been the formal justification for the cost/benefit in a number of companies I have worked in. It's cheaper to get people seen that week and get their in-grown toenails fixed by Friday....
IME one does indeed get a quicker initial diagnosis and treatment in the private sector. However, again IME as one who has both used and worked in the private sector As well as the NHS, after care in the NHS is far superior, and the private sector is happy to rely on the NHS for back up when things go wrong, and also to cover its shortcomings in post-operative care.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Speak for yourself. The CJEU shares my values more so than the current Government.
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
It’s the same people writing the same old whiny shit while apparently being privy to the precise thinking of the government.
The last I heard it was perfectly reasonable to criticise the Government and hold it to account. If you want to stand up and praise Boris Johnson to the skies, be my guest, you have that right.
Perhaps some of us have yet to appreciate the sheer brilliance of the Johnson-Cummings alliance and have yet to sign up to the transformation of Britain from a failing outpost shackled to a dying centrist elite political bloc to...to... whatever it's going to be with the sunlit uplands, the free trade deals, the streets paved with gold and no one ever having the wobbles.
A number of posters seem to believe that it is self-evident that Cummings/ Johnson/ Brexit are going to transform Britain into some wondrous global super -state and anyone who doesn't "believe" in the project is a whinging arse only interested in running down our glorious nation.
It's been the same since the referendum when anyone who dared to suggest there may be downsides to Brexit was howled down with cries of "Project Fear".
Fortunately we are rapidly approaching the time when the talking ends and something has to be delivered.
It's curious how the articles of faith have changed, mostly in a diminishing sense, over the years. First it was faith in the vast and inherent wickedness of the EU; then in the potential of a buccaneering and global Britain; then in Theresa and the British negotiators' ability to run rings around silly foreigners. Now it's all about Dom and Boris - magic brew and the thrill of smashing everything up if all else fails. It's been a miserable tale.
The truth is that Farage et al expected that Britain pulling out would start a domino effect leading to the collapse of the EU and the return to some sort of post-Versailles vision of a Europe of nation states. That the self-inflicted chaos and humiliation we are inflicting upon ourselves might strengthen the adherence of the rest of Europe to the EU genuinely never seems to have occurred to any of the leading Brexiters.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
How old were you in 1993, out of interest?
I would have been too young to vote then and I wasn't alive in 1975. One day I'll be dead and ineligible for future votes too.
That doesn't detract from my point.
In which case, I was never given a vote on whether to be a UK citizen or not. It is exactly the same argument.
No, it's a fucking stupid argument.
I took it apart earlier. You repeating it now makes you a repetitive idiot.
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
IIRC, the Boris Island airport was either on or very close to another wartime ammunition disaster. Some supply ship with so much ammo aboard that they still worry about nearby towns if it ever goes off...
Perhaps Boris has a new technique for used ammo clean up?
286 × 2,000 lb (910 kg) high explosive bombs 4,439 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs of various types 1,925 × 500 lb (230 kg) bombs 2,815 fragmentation bombs and bomb clusters Various explosive booster charges Various smoke bombs, including white phosphorus bombs Various pyrotechnic signals
Crikey....
The exaggerations about the Richard Montgomery are legion. For some reason the doom sayers fail to mention that bombs and shells are transported without primers and fuses in place. Getting high explosives to do anything without either is pretty difficult.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
But the EU doesn't seem to be very good at it; using the internet is an immeasurably worse experience for the consumer for having to do the accept/reject cookies thing on every new website, without any concomitant benefit.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - then?
It's reciprocal
If view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You should be glad we're out of the EU then, since habeas corpus doesn't exist in most of their legal systems and indeed would have started to have been chipped away by the ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
Wrong. You don't understand the Lisbon Treaty, and makes the ECHR rulings justiciable by the ECJ through the CFR of the EU.
Don't try and talk down to me like a 'dumb Brexiter' when I already know more about this subject than you.
No, you don't. And please do not try and swat away my incovenient arguments by claiming I am talking down to you. I am not. I am just saying things you do not like hearing. That is different.
The ECJ has never had the ability to interfere in domestic UK criminal cases and there are no circumstances under which it can limit habeas corpus or has ever been asked to.
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
Too wee and too stupid?
First yes, second no.
How could the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world possibly manage?
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
But the EU doesn't seem to be very good at it; using the internet is an immeasurably worse experience for the consumer for having to do the accept/reject cookies thing on every new website, without any concomitant benefit.
Immeasurably is a bit overstating it, surely? And I don’t expect any organisation toget everything right first time.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No,
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - then?
It's reciprocal
If view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You should be glad we're out of the EU then, since habeas corpus doesn't exist in most of their legal systems and indeed would have started to have been chipped away by the ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
Wrong. You don't understand the Lisbon Treaty, and makes the ECHR rulings justiciable by the ECJ through the CFR of the EU.
Don't try and talk down to me like a 'dumb Brexiter' when I already know more about this subject than you.
No, you don't. And please do not try and swat away my incovenient arguments by claiming I am talking down to you. I am not. I am just saying things you do not like hearing. That is different.
The ECJ has never had the ability to interfere in domestic UK criminal cases and there are no circumstances under which it can limit habeas corpus or has ever been asked to.
I am right; you are wrong.
It really is that simple.
When PB’ers are reduced to posting vacuous arrogant crap like this here, we can safely assume that they have lost it.
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
Too wee and too stupid?
First yes, second no.
How could the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world possibly manage?
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
I actually quite like the idea of Freedom of Movement within a bloc of countries, but they have to be of similar economies, and roughly the same amount of people from each country would have to be happy to live in the others. The problem with EU FoM for the UK was that, when Blair allowed the A8 accession, the ratio of ins and outs from and to the new countries was wrong
When you are driving a Roller, you dont join a car swap club where the others all have Allegros!
Are we driving a Rolls-Royce? Germany is richer, France is as rich, and relative to many places, Italy and Spain would be a step up too, with better weather to boot. Perhaps our silver lady is the English language, the one every foreigner learns at school.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - then?
It's reciprocal
If view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
Wrong. You don't understand the Lisbon Treaty, and makes the ECHR rulings justiciable by the ECJ through the CFR of the EU.
Don't try and talk down to me like a 'dumb Brexiter' when I already know more about this subject than you.
No, you don't. And please do not try and swat away my incovenient arguments by claiming I am talking down to you. I am not. I am just saying things you do not like hearing. That is different.
The ECJ has never had the ability to interfere in domestic UK criminal cases and there are no circumstances under which it can limit habeas corpus or has ever been asked to.
I am right; you are wrong.
It really is that simple.
In which case, you will be able to show how. I will not hold my breath.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No,
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - then?
It's reciprocal
If view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You should be glad we're out of the EU then, since habeas corpus doesn't exist in most of their legal systems and indeed would have started to have been chipped away by the ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
Wrong. You don't understand the Lisbon Treaty, and makes the ECHR rulings justiciable by the ECJ through the CFR of the EU.
Don't try and talk down to me like a 'dumb Brexiter' when I already know more about this subject than you.
No, you don't. And please do not try and swat away my incovenient arguments by claiming I am talking down to you. I am not. I am just saying things you do not like hearing.
I am right; you are wrong.
It really is that simple.
When PB’ers are reduced to posting vacuous arrogant crap like this here, we can safely assume that they have lost it.
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
Too wee and too stupid?
First yes, second no.
How could the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world possibly manage?
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
Bollocks. Why can't you not talk bollocks?
It's not hard. Just use your brain.
Why can't you make your case? Why do you throw insults instead?
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
How old were you in 1993, out of interest?
I would have been too young to vote then and I wasn't alive in 1975. One day I'll be dead and ineligible for future votes too.
That doesn't detract from my point.
In which case, I was never given a vote on whether to be a UK citizen or not. It is exactly the same argument.
No, it's a fucking stupid argument.
I took it apart earlier. You repeating it now makes you a repetitive idiot.
You didn't take it apart earlier. You thought you did. That is different.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No,
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They
They objectives.
CR - then?
It's reciprocal
If view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost overd.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You should be glad we're out of the EU then, since habeas corpus doesn't exist in most of their legal systems and indeed would have started to have been chipped away by the ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
Wrong. You don't understand the Lisbon Treaty, and makes the ECHR rulings justiciable by the ECJ through the CFR of the EU.
Don't try and talk down to me like a 'dumb Brexiter' when I already know more about this subject than you.
No, you don't. And please do not try and swat away my incovenient arguments by claiming I am talking down to you. I am not. I am just saying things you do not like hearing.
I am right; you are wrong.
It really is that simple.
When PB’ers are reduced to posting vacuous arrogant crap like this here, we can safely assume that they have lost it.
Yes, I'm also tired of SO vacuous arrogant crap.
He is at least still throwing punches. You’re a crumpled heap on the canvas still insisting you should be the winner.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
Are we confusing rights with benefits here?
I'm not!
You certainly are.
In what way? Are you saying that we are not going to be losing rights and freedoms we currently have next year? If so, you are - quite simply - wrong. Unless, that is, Boris Johnson is lying, which I suppose is not beyond the realms of possibility.
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
IIRC, the Boris Island airport was either on or very close to another wartime ammunition disaster. Some supply ship with so much ammo aboard that they still worry about nearby towns if it ever goes off...
Perhaps Boris has a new technique for used ammo clean up?
286 × 2,000 lb (910 kg) high explosive bombs 4,439 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs of various types 1,925 × 500 lb (230 kg) bombs 2,815 fragmentation bombs and bomb clusters Various explosive booster charges Various smoke bombs, including white phosphorus bombs Various pyrotechnic signals
Crikey....
The exaggerations about the Richard Montgomery are legion. For some reason the doom sayers fail to mention that bombs and shells are transported without primers and fuses in place. Getting high explosives to do anything without either is pretty difficult.
Watch the 3-minute video linked to below (which does agree that doing nothing is probably best). One risk is that the unprimed bombs at the bottom might be set off by the fused cluster bombs if they fall through from the deck above.
What we are currently in is a honeymoon period, expressed by over-confidence. It will end abruptly by mid-year, when the real Brexit choices have to start to be taken.
It will not happen in Blairs lifetime.. the memory of Blair's illegal wars lingers long.
Blair, Iraq. Thatcher, poll tax. Common factor, hubris. No debates, no checks and balances. Boris has gone straight to late Thatcher/Blair in the elected dictator stakes. Great when flying high; sub-optimal when walking towards an elephant trap, urged on by yes-men as all dissenters were purged.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Speak for yourself. The CJEU shares my values more so than the current Government.
You can vote in and out our government, Dumbo.
I didn’t vote for our government. Neither did a majority of us. What’s your point?
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
Too wee and too stupid?
First yes, second no.
How could the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world possibly manage?
Well we'll soon find out, that's for sure. Time to deliver
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
But the EU doesn't seem to be very good at it; using the internet is an immeasurably worse experience for the consumer for having to do the accept/reject cookies thing on every new website, without any concomitant benefit.
Immeasurably is a bit overstating it, surely? And I don’t expect any organisation toget everything right first time.
Ok: measurably then. But the system is too stupid and pointless to be explained away as a beginners error which can be fixed on the next release.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - then?
It's reciprocal
If view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
Wrong.
N
The ECJ has never had the ability to interfere in domestic UK criminal cases and there are no circumstances under which it can limit habeas corpus or has ever been asked to.
I am right; you are wrong.
It really is that simple.
In which case, you will be able to show how. I will not hold my breath.
No, I don't have time to school you today (again). I have a one year old daughter and wife at home. They're a far greater priority than you.
I've repeated these argument with you time and time again. You've decided to adopt petulant tedious wanker mode since you started posting first thing this morning, as you too choose to use pb.com to vent an provoke, and you've been winding me up all day.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
It is undeniably true that we are losing rights with Brexit, including the right to free movement, and the ability to trade without restriction across the EU27.
It is reasonable for @Casino_Royale to claim that for him the price of those rights were too high, but to deny that we are losing those rights is simply wrong.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
Are we confusing rights with benefits here?
I'm not!
You certainly are.
You have a habit of getting abusive when things don't go your way. Pity as you are usually worth reading
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No,
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They
They objectives.
CR - then?
It's reciprocal
If view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost overd.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You should be glad we're out of the EU then, since habeas corpus doesn't exist in most of their legal systems and indeed would have started to have been chipped away by the ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
Wrong
No, you don't. And please do not try and swat away my incovenient arguments by claiming I am talking down to you. I am not. I am just saying things you do not like hearing.
I am right; you are wrong.
It really is that simple.
When PB’ers are reduced to posting vacuous arrogant crap like this here, we can safely assume that they have lost it.
Yes, I'm also tired of SO vacuous arrogant crap.
He is at least still throwing punches. You’re a crumpled heap on the canvas still insisting you should be the winner.
No, I've been throwing punches all day.
I just don't have the time to fight idiots and morons all day going over old ground all over again.
I have a family life, which idiots like you are distracting me from.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
How old were you in 1993, out of interest?
I would have been too young to vote then and I wasn't alive in 1975. One day I'll be dead and ineligible for future votes too.
That doesn't detract from my point.
In which case, I was never given a vote on whether to be a UK citizen or not. It is exactly the same argument.
No, it's a fucking stupid argument.
I took it apart earlier. You repeating it now makes you a repetitive idiot.
You didn't take it apart earlier. You thought you did. That is different.
I did take it apart.
You didn't recognise it because you didn't want to.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
It is undeniably true that we are losing rights with Brexit, including the right to free movement, and the ability to trade without restriction across the EU27.
It is reasonable for @Casino_Royale to claim that for him the price of those rights were too high, but to deny that we are losing those rights is simply wrong.
No-one has been able to give me a real life practical example of how losing these rights will affect them.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
Are we confusing rights with benefits here?
I'm not!
You certainly are.
You have a habit of getting abusive when things don't go your way. Pity as you are usually worth reading
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
IIRC, the Boris Island airport was either on or very close to another wartime ammunition disaster. Some supply ship with so much ammo aboard that they still worry about nearby towns if it ever goes off...
Perhaps Boris has a new technique for used ammo clean up?
286 × 2,000 lb (910 kg) high explosive bombs 4,439 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs of various types 1,925 × 500 lb (230 kg) bombs 2,815 fragmentation bombs and bomb clusters Various explosive booster charges Various smoke bombs, including white phosphorus bombs Various pyrotechnic signals
Crikey....
The exaggerations about the Richard Montgomery are legion. For some reason the doom sayers fail to mention that bombs and shells are transported without primers and fuses in place. Getting high explosives to do anything without either is pretty difficult.
Watch the 3-minute video linked to below (which does agree that doing nothing is probably best). One risk is that the unprimed bombs at the bottom might be set off by the fused cluster bombs if they fall through from the deck above.
I worked with some experts on explosives when I was in the oil business - some had done some rather interesting projects. Their comments on the whole thing was to look at CHASE 2 and 3
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
It is undeniably true that we are losing rights with Brexit, including the right to free movement, and the ability to trade without restriction across the EU27.
It is reasonable for @Casino_Royale to claim that for him the price of those rights were too high, but to deny that we are losing those rights is simply wrong.
No-one has been able to give me a real life practical example of how losing these rights will affect them.
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
IIRC, the Boris Island airport was either on or very close to another wartime ammunition disaster. Some supply ship with so much ammo aboard that they still worry about nearby towns if it ever goes off...
Perhaps Boris has a new technique for used ammo clean up?
286 × 2,000 lb (910 kg) high explosive bombs 4,439 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs of various types 1,925 × 500 lb (230 kg) bombs 2,815 fragmentation bombs and bomb clusters Various explosive booster charges Various smoke bombs, including white phosphorus bombs Various pyrotechnic signals
Crikey....
The exaggerations about the Richard Montgomery are legion. For some reason the doom sayers fail to mention that bombs and shells are transported without primers and fuses in place. Getting high explosives to do anything without either is pretty difficult.
Watch the 3-minute video linked to below (which does agree that doing nothing is probably best). One risk is that the unprimed bombs at the bottom might be set off by the fused cluster bombs if they fall through from the deck above.
I worked with some experts on explosives when I was in the oil business - some had done some rather interesting projects. Their comments on the whole thing was to look at CHASE 2 and 3
This thread, metaphorically speaking, needs a roaring fire lit, doors battened down against the cold and wind, buttered toast all round, and some useful conversation restored.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
Are we confusing rights with benefits here?
I'm not!
You certainly are.
You have a habit of getting abusive when things don't go your way. Pity as you are usually worth reading
It's not 'not going my way'; it's just SO is a statrospheric eyeore and pedant who winds me up.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
It is undeniably true that we are losing rights with Brexit, including the right to free movement, and the ability to trade without restriction across the EU27.
It is reasonable for @Casino_Royale to claim that for him the price of those rights were too high, but to deny that we are losing those rights is simply wrong.
No-one has been able to give me a real life practical example of how losing these rights will affect them.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - then?
It's reciprocal
If view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
Wrong.
N
The ECJ has never had the ability to interfere in domestic UK criminal cases and there are no circumstances under which it can limit habeas corpus or has ever been asked to.
I am right; you are wrong.
It really is that simple.
In which case, you will be able to show how. I will not hold my breath.
No, I don't have time to school you today (again). I have a one year old daughter and wife at home. They're a far greater priority than you.
I've repeated these argument with you time and time again. You've decided to adopt petulant tedious wanker mode since you started posting first thing this morning, as you too choose to use pb.com to vent an provoke, and you've been winding me up all day.
You're a waste of my time.
I agree that you are much better off spending time with your family than in trying to prove something that isn't true.
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
IIRC, the Boris Island airport was either on or very close to another wartime ammunition disaster. Some supply ship with so much ammo aboard that they still worry about nearby towns if it ever goes off...
Perhaps Boris has a new technique for used ammo clean up?
Boom boom! (As Basil Brush would say)
: Various pyrotechnic signals
Crikey....
The exaggerations about the Richard Montgomery are legion. For some reason the doom sayers fail to mention that bombs and shells are transported without primers and fuses in place. Getting high explosives to do anything without either is pretty difficult.
Watch the 3-minute video linked to below (which does agree that doing nothing is probably best). One risk is that the unprimed bombs at the bottom might be set off by the fused cluster bombs if they fall through from the deck above.
I worked with some experts on explosives when I was in the oil business - some had done some rather interesting projects. Their comments on the whole thing was to look at CHASE 2 and 3
Basically - 1) if you don't carefully rig the ship to make everything go bang, very little does. 2) The weight of actual explosive is a small proportion of the total weight 3) Water does a great job in dampening underwater explosions.
All the stuff about tidal waves wiping out the locality around the Montgomery are horse manure.
It is entirely a decision for the Northern Ireland Secretary whether to hold a border poll under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which implemented the GFA actually
No, the Act provides that in certain circs he *shall* hold a poll, whether he likes it or not.
What satisfaction do you derive from this oafish, ill-informed absolutism?
Only in the circumstances where it looks like there will be a vote to leave the UK and with more Unionist votes than Nationalist votes in NI at the general election currently that is not the case.
The NI Act is also likely to be amended to ensure the Secretary of State's decision is final whatever your distaste for your own country may say
The last time they tried that things did not go well for them and they got chucked out.
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
I'm not obsessed by the EU.
I'm irritated by the europhile posse who are still putting out their (entirely synthetic) crocodile tears on here and demonstrating more loyalty to the EU than their own country.
When PB’ers are reduced to posting vacuous arrogant crap like this here, we can safely assume that they have lost it.
Yes, I'm also tired of SO vacuous arrogant crap.
He is at least still throwing punches. You’re a crumpled heap on the canvas still insisting you should be the winner.
Brexiteers really do make the worst winners
Brexit is turning into ashes in their mouths.
I have some sympathy. All Brexit has delivered us so far is Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings, and I'm not sure there are many more goodies to come. Yes, you can throw your hat wholeheartedly into that ring, but who'd relish that? Awkward.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You
No, it’s fact. rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - then?
It's reciprocal
If view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The
Wrong.
N
I am right; you are wrong.
It really is that simple.
In which case, you will be able to show how. I will not hold my breath.
No, I don't have time to school you today (again). I have a one year old daughter and wife at home. They're a far greater priority than you.
I've repeated these argument with you time and time again. You've decided to adopt petulant tedious wanker mode since you started posting first thing this morning, as you too choose to use pb.com to vent an provoke, and you've been winding me up all day.
You're a waste of my time.
I agree that you are much better off spending time with your family than in trying to prove something that isn't true.
It is true.
You didn't even understand how the treaties worked earlier, or how ECJ jurisdiction applies in the UK.
You are just a pointless waste of time who wants to win a point.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
.
Now, if you're predominantly based in the UK and only travel to the EU for holidays or for short business trips then this doesn't matter. You have a net gain of rights. Because you now have more domestic control.
If you're someone who totally depended on the EU rights and wasn't bothered about domestic control (these are a far far smaller number) then yes you might take a different view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You should be glad we're out of the EU then, since habeas corpus doesn't exist in most of their legal systems and indeed would have started to have been chipped away by the ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
The ECHR is almost an EU court. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is closely tied to it and is part of the EU.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
It is undeniably true that we are losing rights with Brexit, including the right to free movement, and the ability to trade without restriction across the EU27.
It is reasonable for @Casino_Royale to claim that for him the price of those rights were too high, but to deny that we are losing those rights is simply wrong.
No-one has been able to give me a real life practical example of how losing these rights will affect them.
The anger is entirely synthetic.
I will no longer have the right to live, work and study in 27 plus European countries. In practical terms, I should still be able to because I am relatively wealthy. But it will not be a right independent of decisions taken by the governments of the countries concerned, as it is now.
Then there are things like just being able to drive in any EU country with your UK driving licence alone. That will no lomger be an automatic right, Neither will being able to take your pet on holiday, if you wish to. There are many, many other examples.
None may be important to you, but they all represent a loss of freedoms that we currently enjoy.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
Bollocks. Why can't you not talk bollocks?
It's not hard. Just use your brain.
Why can't you make your case? Why do you throw insults instead?
Because you really piss me off and push my buttons.
Stop being so provocative if you want a sensible conversation.
I'm sure your wife makes similar comments to you privately.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You
No, it’s fact. rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - then?
It's reciprocal
If view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The
Wrong.
N
I am right; you are wrong.
It really is that simple.
In which case, you will be able to show how. I will not hold my breath.
No, I don't have time to school you today (again). I have a one year old daughter and wife at home. They're a far greater priority than you.
I'veday.
You're a waste of my time.
I agree that you are much better off spending time with your family than in trying to prove something that isn't true.
It is true.
You didn't even understand how the treaties worked earlier, or how ECJ jurisdiction applies in the UK.
You are just a pointless waste of time who wants to win a point.
It's sad and pathetic.
I do understand, clearly a whole lot better than you. It has been an integral part of the work I do for the last 28 years.
Objectively, Stewart is probably the best candidate. Khan is no great shakes, Bailey is worse. The others are pointless. Khan will win by a landslide, though.
It's pretty tragic that you spend all day posting about rights, liberalism, democracy, decentralisation, rule of law and accountability, and then describe the candidates running on those platforms as "pointless".
Basically - 1) if you don't carefully rig the ship to make everything go bang, very little does. 2) The weight of actual explosive is a small proportion of the total weight 3) Water does a great job in dampening underwater explosions.
All the stuff about tidal waves wiping out the locality around the Montgomery are horse manure.
Um, from your own link, in CHASE 2 "Village was loaded with 7348 short tons of munitions at the Naval Weapons Station Earle and towed to a deep-water dump site on 17 September 1964. There were three large and unexpected detonations five minutes after Village slipped beneath the surface. An oil slick and some debris appeared on the surface. The explosion registered on seismic equipment all over the world."
It is entirely a decision for the Northern Ireland Secretary whether to hold a border poll under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which implemented the GFA actually
No, the Act provides that in certain circs he *shall* hold a poll, whether he likes it or not.
What satisfaction do you derive from this oafish, ill-informed absolutism?
Only in the circumstances where it looks like there will be a vote to leave the UK and with more Unionist votes than Nationalist votes in NI at the general election currently that is not the case.
The NI Act is also likely to be amended to ensure the Secretary of State's decision is final whatever your distaste for your own country may say
The last time they tried that things did not go well for them and they got chucked out.
Is HYUFD saying that the NI Act will be amended so that even if it appeared there might be a majority for a poll the SoS could turn not down?
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
Bollocks. Why can't you not talk bollocks?
It's not hard. Just use your brain.
Why can't you make your case? Why do you throw insults instead?
Because you really piss me off and push my buttons.
Stop being so provocative if you want a sensible conversation.
I'm sure your wife makes similar comments to you privately.
My wife is perfectly capable of having a civil conversation with people she does not agree with. I wonder if your wife is allowed to.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
.
Now, if you're predominantly based in the UK and only travel to the EU for holidays or for short business trips then this doesn't matter. You have a net gain of rights. Because you now have more domestic control.
If you're someone who totally depended on the EU rights and wasn't bothered about domestic control (these are a far far smaller number) then yes you might take a different view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You should be glad we're out of the EU then, since habeas corpus doesn't exist in most of their legal systems and indeed would have started to have been chipped away by the ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
The ECHR is almost an EU court. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is closely tied to it and is part of the EU.
The ECtHR is not an EU court. The ECJ is an EU court.
The CFR makes the ECHR justiciable in the EU through the ECJ.
It was delights like this that led to the ECJ ruling against voting rights for prisoners in the UK in 2015.
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
I'm not obsessed by the EU.
I'm irritated by the europhile posse who are still putting out their (entirely synthetic) crocodile tears on here and demonstrating more loyalty to the EU than their own country.
You do not own this country or get to define what loyalty to it consists of.
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
Too wee and too stupid?
First yes, second no.
How could the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world possibly manage?
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
Bollocks. Why can't you not talk bollocks?
It's not hard. Just use your brain.
Why can't you make your case? Why do you throw insults instead?
Because you really piss me off and push my buttons.
Stop being so provocative if you want a sensible conversation.
I'm sure your wife makes similar comments to you privately.
My wife is perfectly capable of having a civil conversation with people she does not agree with. I wonder if your wife is allowed to.
She absolutely is - and she recognises how best to sensibly engage with people in a constructive conversation rather than a pedantic last wordy tit-for-tat just because you want to win a few points.
Brexit by itself as in pulling out of the political institutions and changing the trade terms is of course a big deal . But it’s how Brexit now resembles a Trojan horse by some in the Tory party to force their world view onto the country .
Sadly the public will be fed a diet of right wing headlines trashing the ECHR as being easy on terrorists , then anyone criticizing the government for its likely attempt to pull out of that will be branded as soft on terrorists and not patriotic !
There will of course be no headlines as to how the ECHR helped couples who didn’t want to be separated if they went into care or the other rulings which reduced discrimination.
Rights are there to protect everyone , but that does mean they sometimes help people who most would class as not deserving of that .
But in the grand scheme of things the good outweighs the negative .
Brexiters seem to view things as either black or white . And fail to think about the longer term implications when another government who they might be suspicious of is in power .
This was highlighted by the prorogation case which again was used by the right wing press as another attempt to misinform , once again we saw the garbage written that the SC was trying to overturn Brexit, this was then parroted by some Leavers .
Completely ignoring the fact that this was simply a case about how much power should be in the hands of the PM and the executive .
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
Bollocks. Why can't you not talk bollocks?
It's not hard. Just use your brain.
Why can't you make your case? Why do you throw insults instead?
Because you really piss me off and push my buttons.
Stop being so provocative if you want a sensible conversation.
I'm sure your wife makes similar comments to you privately.
It's quite clear to most of that it is you not SO who would benefit from an anger management course. You are starting to come across as a nasty piece of work, I suggest you take a time out.
Objectively, Stewart is probably the best candidate. Khan is no great shakes, Bailey is worse. The others are pointless. Khan will win by a landslide, though.
It's pretty tragic that you spend all day posting about rights, liberalism, democracy, decentralisation, rule of law and accountability, and then describe the candidates running on those platforms as "pointless".
When PB’ers are reduced to posting vacuous arrogant crap like this here, we can safely assume that they have lost it.
Yes, I'm also tired of SO vacuous arrogant crap.
He is at least still throwing punches. You’re a crumpled heap on the canvas still insisting you should be the winner.
Brexiteers really do make the worst winners
Brexit is turning into ashes in their mouths.
It is amazing the effect of social media on us all. It allows everyone to throw insults about with the cloak of distance and anonymity reducing the social cost. That in turn causes people on the other side to want to feel like we are "winning" over those bastards insulting us. And the easiest way to do that is to arrogantly talk to others on our own side in view of the bastards about how much they are losing. That in turn makes the other side hate us and throw more insults. And so goes on the vicious circle.
Us pro-EU people haven't stopped to think how badly we have lost over the last few years. We lost the referendum, we lost by default the fight for a soft Brexit because we didn't fight it, we lost Theresa May's medium Brexit, and then we lost the election. Smugly pretending we actually won because it's a Pyrrhic victory for the Leavers is both incorrect and motivates the other side so we will keep on losing.
I despair about how my would-be allies are putting what makes them feel emotionally better over what will actually win political battles. We need a Rejoin majority in parliament. That means keeping Scotland and Northern Ireland in the UK and winning back seats in leafy southern suburbs and working class towns in the North and Midlands. People need to start thinking about the tone and messages that will do that. Not just in election campaigns but on an ongoing basis leading up to them.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Yes, as I say: you are fine with losing the freedoms and rights that we are going to lose. That does not mean you will not be losing them.
Bollocks. Why can't you not talk bollocks?
It's not hard. Just use your brain.
Why can't you make your case? Why do you throw insults instead?
Because you really piss me off and push my buttons.
Stop being so provocative if you want a sensible conversation.
I'm sure your wife makes similar comments to you privately.
My wife is perfectly capable of having a civil conversation with people she does not agree with. I wonder if your wife is allowed to.
She absolutely is - and she recognises how best to sensibly engage with people in a constructive conversation rather than a pedantic last wordy tit-for-tat just because you want to win a few points.
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
I'm not obsessed by the EU.
I'm irritated by the europhile posse who are still putting out their (entirely synthetic) crocodile tears on here and demonstrating more loyalty to the EU than their own country.
You do not own this country or get to define what loyalty to it consists of.
Another stupid and unnecessary post.
No, of course I don't own the country. But I do recognise split and conflicted loyalties when i see it and I absolutely get to call it out.
Want to change my mind? Start talking about Britain and British interests rather than constantly whinging about abstract EU "rights" you've never actually used as if that's all you actually care about.
It is entirely a decision for the Northern Ireland Secretary whether to hold a border poll under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which implemented the GFA actually
No, the Act provides that in certain circs he *shall* hold a poll, whether he likes it or not.
What satisfaction do you derive from this oafish, ill-informed absolutism?
Only in the circumstances where it looks like there will be a vote to leave the UK and with more Unionist votes than Nationalist votes in NI at the general election currently that is not the case.
The NI Act is also likely to be amended to ensure the Secretary of State's decision is final whatever your distaste for your own country may say
The last time they tried that things did not go well for them and they got chucked out.
Is HYUFD saying that the NI Act will be amended so that even if it appeared there might be a majority for a poll the SoS could turn not down?
Yes he is saying they will do same as they are currently doing to Scotland and deny democracy. They are turning it into a English dictatorship.
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
I'm not obsessed by the EU.
I'm irritated by the europhile posse who are still putting out their (entirely synthetic) crocodile tears on here and demonstrating more loyalty to the EU than their own country.
You do not own this country or get to define what loyalty to it consists of.
Another stupid and unnecessary post.
No, of course I don't own the country. But I do recognise split and conflicted loyalties when i see it and I absolutely get to call it out.
Want to change my mind? Start talking about Britain and British interests rather than constantly whinging about abstract EU "rights" you've never actually used as if that's all you actually care about.
I believe it is in British interests for British citizens to enjoy the rights that EU membership conferred on them. I think it made us a better country.
When PB’ers are reduced to posting vacuous arrogant crap like this here, we can safely assume that they have lost it.
Yes, I'm also tired of SO vacuous arrogant crap.
He is at least still throwing punches. You’re a crumpled heap on the canvas still insisting you should be the winner.
Brexiteers really do make the worst winners
Brexit is turning into ashes in their mouths.
That Remainers keep trotting this out in the hope that it might one day become true makes the decision taken by the 17.4m on 23rd June 2016 sweeter every day.
I've had plenty to celebrate since that date. You? How's your Remain bunting looking?
Comments
Medicare prices are considerably below "regular" prices in American health care. As far as we can work out "prices" - the entire health industry in the US is a tangled scnarl of special interests and strange legal provisions. In some states a doctor is not *allowed* to quote an actual X for Y price...
Anyway, many doctors state that they do Medicare work on a semi-charitable basis and would not do 100% Medicare work.
It has often been observed that America spends far more on healthcare than the various free-at-the-point-of-delivery government scheme around the world. This is in part because of the no-holds spending attitude of the medical system - more is better, up to the limits of insurance. So you have ridiculous costs for treating a portion of the population.
A government insurance scheme that attempted to provide such care levels to the entire population would be unaffordable. So Sanders is proposing (in effect) to crunch the prices to Medicare levels. Which the doctors and hospitals wont accept.
At this point some people talked of forcing the medical system to accept the government mandated prices. Sanders is going the other route - by eliminating private insurance, this leaves Medicare-For-All and cash payment as the sole sources of funding. So the medical system would have to lump it, or go out of business.
This is the biggest problem for his ideas - apart from collapsing a large industry (the health insurance system), it would mean a massive squeeze on pay and conditions for everyone in the American medical system - more work, less pay.
There would also be a a massive squeeze in the nature of care - doctors from Europe regard the American system as performing unnecessary tests and procedures to the point of malpractice, American doctors often regard European levels of care as terribly constrained.
https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/1228635062314455040?s=20
Free movement is fine until it's a problem, and then it isn't.
286 × 2,000 lb (910 kg) high explosive bombs
4,439 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs of various types
1,925 × 500 lb (230 kg) bombs
2,815 fragmentation bombs and bomb clusters
Various explosive booster charges
Various smoke bombs, including white phosphorus bombs
Various pyrotechnic signals
Crikey....
*I know vaguely what Hot Trod is so have refrained from patter about lowered suspension and oversized carbs.
That has been the formal justification for the cost/benefit in a number of companies I have worked in. It's cheaper to get people seen that week and get their in-grown toenails fixed by Friday....
Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
The ECJ has never had the ability to interfere in domestic UK criminal cases and there are no circumstances under which it can limit habeas corpus or has ever been asked to.
I took it apart earlier. You repeating it now makes you a repetitive idiot.
It's not hard. Just use your brain.
It really is that simple.
Brexiteers really do make the worst winners
3 Queen of the Southam - Casino Rangers 2
I've repeated these argument with you time and time again. You've decided to adopt petulant tedious wanker mode since you started posting first thing this morning, as you too choose to use pb.com to vent an provoke, and you've been winding me up all day.
You're a waste of my time.
It is reasonable for @Casino_Royale to claim that for him the price of those rights were too high, but to deny that we are losing those rights is simply wrong.
I just don't have the time to fight idiots and morons all day going over old ground all over again.
I have a family life, which idiots like you are distracting me from.
You didn't recognise it because you didn't want to.
That is different.
The anger is entirely synthetic.
Some might claim they do as you currently inhabit "their side" - they are doing so solely as a flag of convenience, so don't be flattered by it.
He is normally worth reading.
I can go on all day.
I'm irritated by the europhile posse who are still putting out their (entirely synthetic) crocodile tears on here and demonstrating more loyalty to the EU than their own country.
You didn't even understand how the treaties worked earlier, or how ECJ jurisdiction applies in the UK.
You are just a pointless waste of time who wants to win a point.
It's sad and pathetic.
Then there are things like just being able to drive in any EU country with your UK driving licence alone. That will no lomger be an automatic right, Neither will being able to take your pet on holiday, if you wish to. There are many, many other examples.
None may be important to you, but they all represent a loss of freedoms that we currently enjoy.
Stop being so provocative if you want a sensible conversation.
I'm sure your wife makes similar comments to you privately.
No chance of anything going wrong then. Ever.
Sorry, not sorry.
Sadly the public will be fed a diet of right wing headlines trashing the ECHR as being easy on terrorists , then anyone criticizing the government for its likely attempt to pull out of that will be branded as soft on terrorists and not patriotic !
There will of course be no headlines as to how the ECHR helped couples who didn’t want to be separated if they went into care or the other rulings which reduced discrimination.
Rights are there to protect everyone , but that does mean they sometimes help people who most would class as not deserving of that .
But in the grand scheme of things the good outweighs the negative .
Brexiters seem to view things as either black or white . And fail to think about the longer term implications when another government who they might be suspicious of is in power .
This was highlighted by the prorogation case which again was used by the right wing press as another attempt to misinform , once again we saw the garbage written that the SC was trying to overturn Brexit, this was then parroted by some Leavers .
Completely ignoring the fact that this was simply a case about how much power should be in the hands of the PM and the executive .
Us pro-EU people haven't stopped to think how badly we have lost over the last few years. We lost the referendum, we lost by default the fight for a soft Brexit because we didn't fight it, we lost Theresa May's medium Brexit, and then we lost the election. Smugly pretending we actually won because it's a Pyrrhic victory for the Leavers is both incorrect and motivates the other side so we will keep on losing.
I despair about how my would-be allies are putting what makes them feel emotionally better over what will actually win political battles. We need a Rejoin majority in parliament. That means keeping Scotland and Northern Ireland in the UK and winning back seats in leafy southern suburbs and working class towns in the North and Midlands. People need to start thinking about the tone and messages that will do that. Not just in election campaigns but on an ongoing basis leading up to them.
See, anyone can do it ...
No, of course I don't own the country. But I do recognise split and conflicted loyalties when i see it and I absolutely get to call it out.
Want to change my mind? Start talking about Britain and British interests rather than constantly whinging about abstract EU "rights" you've never actually used as if that's all you actually care about.
Sorry.
I've had plenty to celebrate since that date. You? How's your Remain bunting looking?