If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
We'll be missing you 😊
On a serious basis I share your opposition to the death penalty. Don't worry it's not going to happen. No place for it in a civilised society. 👍
On the Fisheries part of the Brexit deal and going back to the claim that swaps were not covered in the deal, it looks like this is not correct.
Article FISH 6 Paragraph 8
"The Parties agree to set up a mechanism for voluntary in-year transfers of fishing opportunities between the Parties, to take place each year. The Specialised Committee on Fisheries shall decide on the details of this mechanism. The Parties shall consider making transfers of fishing opportunities for stocks which are, or are projected to be, underfished available at market value through this mechanism."
This is exactly what happens at the moment with - currently - any swaps having to be registered with the authorities in advance for the year.
So all that appears to have happened is they have left the detail of the swaps to the Committee which has to be set up anyway to provide oversight to the whole fishing agreement.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They’ll no longer be *required* to offer free tuition to EU citizens, as was previously the case.
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
Your point about treatment of a student from Nigeria -- as opposed to as student from Lithuania -- is an interesting one (which I confess had not occurred to me).
I don't know the answer, but it looks as though they both have to be treated equally now.
There seem to be ~ 20,000 EU students in Scottish Universities (data from 2017), so ~ 5,000 a year (as most Scottish degrees are 4 year long).
Presumably, the Scottish Government could continue to offer ~ 5000 free tuition scholarships annually to international students, based solely on merit.
It is a great idea. It looks as though they can afford it (as it is just a continuation of what they do now).
But, I am not sure that they could now restrict these scholarships to just EU students.
Any lawyers able to comment? Perhaps I have misunderstood the legalities ?
Why can't they be discriminated against?
Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament, or in this instance the Scottish Parliament, wishes to discriminate then why can't it do so?
Whether it should is surely a different matter to whether it can?
We’re still signatories to the ECHR. That hasn’t changed. We would have to withdraw from that before deliberate discrimination would be allowed.
We have deliberate discrimination quite often in laws.
Nigerians require a visa to come to the UK while Europeans don't. Namibians and Botswanians don't either for what its worth.
The whole point of trade deals like the UK/EU one just signed is to enable the countries to facilitate trade differently between each others nations than between other ones.
PS I don't think the Scottish government are direct signatories to the ECHR are they?
I agree that there are different visa regulations for different countries.
But, I think it is a really bad look for a University to say there are free scholarships that will pay your tuition fees, Nigerians not welcome.
I don't think any self-respecting University would want to be associated with such a thing, whether legal or not.
I believe the French and Belgian governments are backing local champion Valneva (which wasn't able to persuade the EU its vaccine would work) with their own direct orders.
Although all the vaccine science in Valneva is really Austrian
I read somewhere that we would have been required to abandon our backing for Jenner/AZ to join the Eu scheme so we didn’t
If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
What talk of it being introduced?
You're the first person I've seen bring it up.
Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.
And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Probably a stupid question, but why should I have to pay customs duties on personal imports when we have a tariff- and quota-free trade deal?
Tariffs are only removed if your goods meet certain conditions, including how much content comes from the UK and EU as opposed to other countries. You have to fill in copious forms. If the tariffs aren't too massive you may choose to pay them rather than take on the burden and costs of declarations.
Amusingly, even though it is published on the EC website, there it is marked
"Distribution only on a ‘Need to know' basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure deletion."
Amusingly, even though it is published on the EC website, there it is marked
"Distribution only on a ‘Need to know' basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure deletion."
What's wrong with Order of the British Commonwealth? After all, that's what the Empire has morphed into, it's what HMQ cares about and no-one could possibly take offence. Seems the obvious choice to me.
Only that I thought we were looking for E words! I'm sure we could have a lot of fun with C words too
Why not have it like UBS
Union Bank of Switzerland merged with SBC Warburg to form UBS.
But technically UBS doesn’t stand for anything
Edit: I realise that may be misleadingly phrased. Of course I meant the initials “UBS” don’t stand for anything... ahem... as you were
Amusingly, even though it is published on the EC website, there it is marked
"Distribution only on a ‘Need to know' basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure deletion."
I believe the French and Belgian governments are backing local champion Valneva (which wasn't able to persuade the EU its vaccine would work) with their own direct orders.
I'd love it if we found out there was only ever one good vaccine produced, and everybody else produced it under their own preferred brand to encourage take up.
Well, the Moderna and Pfizer (one US, one German) vaccines show suspiciously similar results...
If it were true, that only one decent vaccine had been developed, would it be morally wrong for governments to collectively decide on the deception I suggested if it did result in higher vaccine take up?
It’s called co-marketing (as opposed to co-promotion) and happens all the time in the Pharma industry
What's wrong with Order of the British Commonwealth? After all, that's what the Empire has morphed into, it's what HMQ cares about and no-one could possibly take offence. Seems the obvious choice to me.
Only that I thought we were looking for E words! I'm sure we could have a lot of fun with C words too
Why not have it like UBS
Union Bank of Switzerland merged with SBC Warburg to form UBS.
But technically UBS doesn’t stand for anything
Edit: I realise that may be misleadingly phrased. Of course I meant the initials “UBS” don’t stand for anything... ahem... as you were
I was always told that UBS stood for 'U Be Stupid' or 'Unbelievable Bunker System'.
If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
What talk of it being introduced?
You're the first person I've seen bring it up.
Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.
And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.
Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...
I believe the French and Belgian governments are backing local champion Valneva (which wasn't able to persuade the EU its vaccine would work) with their own direct orders.
I'd love it if we found out there was only ever one good vaccine produced, and everybody else produced it under their own preferred brand to encourage take up.
Well, the Moderna and Pfizer (one US, one German) vaccines show suspiciously similar results...
If it were true, that only one decent vaccine had been developed, would it be morally wrong for governments to collectively decide on the deception I suggested if it did result in higher vaccine take up?
It’s called co-marketing (as opposed to co-promotion) and happens all the time in the Pharma industry
Does the 'happens all the time' bit mean it is morally acceptable for governments to lie to their citizens about where their nationally approved vaccine comes from?
If it does, would it hold true for Palestinians vaccinated by an Israeli vaccine dose if it were called something else?
Amusingly, even though it is published on the EC website, there it is marked
"Distribution only on a ‘Need to know' basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure deletion."
To be fair these treaties are not as onerous as one might think if you are looking only at specific areas of interest and at detail which might not be covered in the executive summary. It is only MPs like Ken Clarke who seem to have difficulty with basic comprehension and so don't bother.
What's wrong with Order of the British Commonwealth? After all, that's what the Empire has morphed into, it's what HMQ cares about and no-one could possibly take offence. Seems the obvious choice to me.
Only that I thought we were looking for E words! I'm sure we could have a lot of fun with C words too
Why not have it like UBS
Union Bank of Switzerland merged with SBC Warburg to form UBS.
But technically UBS doesn’t stand for anything
Edit: I realise that may be misleadingly phrased. Of course I meant the initials “UBS” don’t stand for anything... ahem... as you were
I was always told that UBS stood for 'U Be Stupid' or 'Unbelievable Bunker System'.
"Utter Bull Shit"
Or during the financial crisis - "Unemployed By Spring".
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from an economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
Actually I think Johnson and Frost believed they would get a better deal than they did by "not bluffing". At the end of the day they took the deal. They were out-bluffed. Or maybe out-not-bluffed.
What's wrong with Order of the British Commonwealth? After all, that's what the Empire has morphed into, it's what HMQ cares about and no-one could possibly take offence. Seems the obvious choice to me.
Only that I thought we were looking for E words! I'm sure we could have a lot of fun with C words too
Why not have it like UBS
Union Bank of Switzerland merged with SBC Warburg to form UBS.
But technically UBS doesn’t stand for anything
Edit: I realise that may be misleadingly phrased. Of course I meant the initials “UBS” don’t stand for anything... ahem... as you were
I was always told that UBS stood for 'U Be Stupid' or 'Unbelievable Bunker System'.
And SBC was lovingly referred to as “Siloed Bunch of C****s”
My favourite was when Deutsche told the partners at Morgan Grenfell that they could no longer answer the phone “Morgan Grenfell” as they were now Deutsche.
So they started answering it “Guten Morgan” instead
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from an economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
Agreed.
But @Philip_Thompson seems to think some great victory was won because the EU moved more than the U.K. without appreciating that that is a silly metric by which to measure success.
If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
What talk of it being introduced?
You're the first person I've seen bring it up.
Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.
And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.
Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...
I would definitely have voted to execute Socrates. Indeed, I'd probably have chucked Plato on the pile with him. I would support digging up Kant's body and hanging it, just to be sure. And let's not even start on Hegel.
I have a Philosophy degree, so I know of which I speak.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from an economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
But the bus ... I never saw, "Let's have quasi-religion instead"
If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
What talk of it being introduced?
You're the first person I've seen bring it up.
Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.
And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.
Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...
I would definitely have voted to execute Socrates. Indeed, I'd probably have chucked Plato on the pile with him. I would support digging up Kant's body and hanging it, just to be sure. And let's not even start on Hegel.
I have a Philosophy degree, so I know of which I speak.
Amusingly, even though it is published on the EC website, there it is marked
"Distribution only on a ‘Need to know' basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure deletion."
To be fair these treaties are not as onerous as one might think if you are looking only at specific areas of interest and at detail which might not be covered in the executive summary. It is only MPs like Ken Clarke who seem to have difficulty with basic comprehension and so don't bother.
It is pretty dense though.
I found it useful to read the Institue for Government summary first; subsequent dips into the detailed text have not really added anything worthwhile to my understanding.
If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
What talk of it being introduced?
You're the first person I've seen bring it up.
Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.
And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.
Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...
I would definitely have voted to execute Socrates. Indeed, I'd probably have chucked Plato on the pile with him. I would support digging up Kant's body and hanging it, just to be sure. And let's not even start on Hegel.
I have a Philosophy degree, so I know of which I speak.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from an economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
Agreed.
But @Philip_Thompson seems to think some great victory was won because the EU moved more than the U.K. without appreciating that that is a silly metric by which to measure success.
PT was expecting no deal. He didn't have the balls to call it, but he was very big on the white hot crucible of egg-breaking omelette making of which He Personally Was Not Afraid which it was going to entail. The deal upset him so much he went off air for 48 hours. I was really worried.
Amusingly, even though it is published on the EC website, there it is marked
"Distribution only on a ‘Need to know' basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure deletion."
To be fair these treaties are not as onerous as one might think if you are looking only at specific areas of interest and at detail which might not be covered in the executive summary. It is only MPs like Ken Clarke who seem to have difficulty with basic comprehension and so don't bother.
It is pretty dense though.
I found it useful to read the Institue for Government summary first; subsequent dips into the detailed text have not really added anything worthwhile to my understanding.
Yep that's fair enough. Sadly it does mean that some of the myths that are being propagated - such as the one I mentioned earlier about swaps - are not challenged because they are covered in the text but not in the summary.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from n economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
But the bus ... I never saw, "Let's have quasi-religion instead"
Jesus. Fuck the Bus. I know it annoys Remainers, but... it was a bus. Get over it.
This really is boring now.
Remain lost. Leave won. Remain thereafter tried to cancel democracy, but they failed (thank God) and so we are Leaving. Some of this Leaving will be shit, and disappointing, some of it will be good, and energising. It is a major geopolitical rupture, and a new reality dawns. Expect turbulence.
Britain has been around for 2000 years, the EU has been around for 70 years. We will surely endure and we will very likely prosper, in the end. As of now, a temporary trading arrangement with evermore onerous political duties has come to a close. So be it.
If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
What talk of it being introduced?
You're the first person I've seen bring it up.
Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.
And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.
Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...
I would definitely have voted to execute Socrates. Indeed, I'd probably have chucked Plato on the pile with him. I would support digging up Kant's body and hanging it, just to be sure. And let's not even start on Hegel.
I have a Philosophy degree, so I know of which I speak.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from n economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
But the bus ... I never saw, "Let's have quasi-religion instead"
Jesus. Fuck the Bus. I know it annoys Remainers, but... it was a bus. Get over it.
This really is boring now.
Remain lost. Leave won. Remain thereafter tried to cancel democracy, but they failed (thank God) and so we are Leaving. Some of this Leaving will be shit, and disappointing, some of it will be good, and energising. It is a major geopolitical rupture, and a new reality dawns. Expect turbulence.
Britain has been around for 2000 years, the EU has been around for 70 years. We will surely endure and we will very likely prosper, in the end. As of now, a temporary trading arrangement with evermore onerous political duties has come to a close. So be it.
Amusingly, even though it is published on the EC website, there it is marked
"Distribution only on a ‘Need to know' basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure deletion."
To be fair these treaties are not as onerous as one might think if you are looking only at specific areas of interest and at detail which might not be covered in the executive summary. It is only MPs like Ken Clarke who seem to have difficulty with basic comprehension and so don't bother.
It is pretty dense though.
I found it useful to read the Institue for Government summary first; subsequent dips into the detailed text have not really added anything worthwhile to my understanding.
Yep that's fair enough. Sadly it does mean that some of the myths that are being propagated - such as the one I mentioned earlier about swaps - are not challenged because they are covered in the text but not in the summary.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from n economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
But the bus ... I never saw, "Let's have quasi-religion instead"
Jesus. Fuck the Bus. I know it annoys Remainers, but... it was a bus. Get over it.
This really is boring now.
Remain lost. Leave won. Remain thereafter tried to cancel democracy, but they failed (thank God) and so we are Leaving. Some of this Leaving will be shit, and disappointing, some of it will be good, and energising. It is a major geopolitical rupture, and a new reality dawns. Expect turbulence.
Britain has been around for 2000 years, the EU has been around for 70 years. We will surely endure and we will very likely prosper, in the end. As of now, a temporary trading arrangement with evermore onerous political duties has come to a close. So be it.
Yeah but you don't need to be pompous about it. Britain made a mistake. It will have to deal with it. We all will. It's how it is.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from n economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
But the bus ... I never saw, "Let's have quasi-religion instead"
Jesus. Fuck the Bus. I know it annoys Remainers, but... it was a bus. Get over it.
This really is boring now.
Remain lost. Leave won. Remain thereafter tried to cancel democracy, but they failed (thank God) and so we are Leaving. Some of this Leaving will be shit, and disappointing, some of it will be good, and energising. It is a major geopolitical rupture, and a new reality dawns. Expect turbulence.
Britain has been around for 2000 years, the EU has been around for 70 years. We will surely endure and we will very likely prosper, in the end. As of now, a temporary trading arrangement with evermore onerous political duties has come to a close. So be it.
Yeah but you don't need to be pompous about it. Britain made a mistake. It will have to death it. We all will. It's how it is.
But it's only you guys who are still whingeing. Stop.
If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
What talk of it being introduced?
You're the first person I've seen bring it up.
Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.
And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.
Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...
I would definitely have voted to execute Socrates. Indeed, I'd probably have chucked Plato on the pile with him. I would support digging up Kant's body and hanging it, just to be sure. And let's not even start on Hegel.
I have a Philosophy degree, so I know of which I speak.
The Socrates thing is just the most inexplicably evil political act in history. It's not just they there was no real reason for it, there was scarcely even the pretence of a pretext. It's as if the SA government had hanged Nelson Mandela, except that Mandela had actually done something. That and the Mytilenian debate, and a lot of other things, make me think that nobody who knew very much about Athens would hold it up as a poster child for democracy.
If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
What talk of it being introduced?
You're the first person I've seen bring it up.
Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.
And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.
Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...
I would definitely have voted to execute Socrates. Indeed, I'd probably have chucked Plato on the pile with him. I would support digging up Kant's body and hanging it, just to be sure. And let's not even start on Hegel.
I have a Philosophy degree, so I know of which I speak.
How would you have voted in the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus?
I didn't vote to read your inane, sad, bleating, pathetic, I'm-a-sad-loser comments about Brexit FOR A DECADE.
To be honest, if Remain HAD put that in their campaign literature - you will get sad men moaning at you for twelve years - they might have persuaded me more to their cause.
What I don't get is why they feel the need, as they will surely have done enough by now to ensure they have no fear of being seriously primaried (if it was even a risk) over lack of Trump support, and probably come from districts where they are completely safe anyway.
Have you considered that the GOP is populated by absolute fuckers who believe this shit?
The GOP is not a serious political party. It just happens to have the position of one.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from n economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
But the bus ... I never saw, "Let's have quasi-religion instead"
Jesus. Fuck the Bus. I know it annoys Remainers, but... it was a bus. Get over it.
This really is boring now.
Remain lost. Leave won. Remain thereafter tried to cancel democracy, but they failed (thank God) and so we are Leaving. Some of this Leaving will be shit, and disappointing, some of it will be good, and energising. It is a major geopolitical rupture, and a new reality dawns. Expect turbulence.
Britain has been around for 2000 years, the EU has been around for 70 years. We will surely endure and we will very likely prosper, in the end. As of now, a temporary trading arrangement with evermore onerous political duties has come to a close. So be it.
Yeah but you don't need to be pompous about it. Britain made a mistake. It will have to deal with it. We all will. It's how it is.
Pompous bloke says he knows better than 17.4m votes. lol.......
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from n economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
But the bus ... I never saw, "Let's have quasi-religion instead"
Jesus. Fuck the Bus. I know it annoys Remainers, but... it was a bus. Get over it.
This really is boring now.
Remain lost. Leave won. Remain thereafter tried to cancel democracy, but they failed (thank God) and so we are Leaving. Some of this Leaving will be shit, and disappointing, some of it will be good, and energising. It is a major geopolitical rupture, and a new reality dawns. Expect turbulence.
Britain has been around for 2000 years, the EU has been around for 70 years. We will surely endure and we will very likely prosper, in the end. As of now, a temporary trading arrangement with evermore onerous political duties has come to a close. So be it.
It's curious how those who hail this "major geopolitical rupture" and dawn of a "new reality" seem to want to stop discussion of what this means for us all. And on a politics website of all places.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They’ll no longer be *required* to offer free tuition to EU citizens, as was previously the case.
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
Your point about treatment of a student from Nigeria -- as opposed to as student from Lithuania -- is an interesting one (which I confess had not occurred to me).
I don't know the answer, but it looks as though they both have to be treated equally now.
There seem to be ~ 20,000 EU students in Scottish Universities (data from 2017), so ~ 5,000 a year (as most Scottish degrees are 4 year long).
Presumably, the Scottish Government could continue to offer ~ 5000 free tuition scholarships annually to international students, based solely on merit.
It is a great idea. It looks as though they can afford it (as it is just a continuation of what they do now).
But, I am not sure that they could now restrict these scholarships to just EU students.
Any lawyers able to comment? Perhaps I have misunderstood the legalities ?
It's very easy for the Scottish government to discriminate, if they so choose, using the same mechanism the UK government does in the allocation of points to potential immigrants. Simply, not all universities and educational institutions are rated equally.
What moral or practical argument for limiting it to EU students?
The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.
ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.
Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.
The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.
ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.
Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from n economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
But the bus ... I never saw, "Let's have quasi-religion instead"
Jesus. Fuck the Bus. I know it annoys Remainers, but... it was a bus. Get over it.
This really is boring now.
Remain lost. Leave won. Remain thereafter tried to cancel democracy, but they failed (thank God) and so we are Leaving. Some of this Leaving will be shit, and disappointing, some of it will be good, and energising. It is a major geopolitical rupture, and a new reality dawns. Expect turbulence.
Britain has been around for 2000 years, the EU has been around for 70 years. We will surely endure and we will very likely prosper, in the end. As of now, a temporary trading arrangement with evermore onerous political duties has come to a close. So be it.
It's curious how those who hail this "major geopolitical rupture" and dawn of a "new reality" seem to want to stop discussion of what this means for us all. And on a politics website of all places.
Why would that be, I wonder.
It REALLY is because it is boring. We are in the midst of a much greater crisis than anything Brexit might do. And Brexit is also a done deal. It is happening. Who cares about the small print of a trade treaty compared to the Blaclk Death?
There will be a time when we can, at leisure, discuss paragraph 4b.3 of subsection 8 of the reciprocal UK-EU health insurance schemes, but this, I feel, ain't it.
And this is not because I fear scrutiny of Brexit. Brexit was always going to be painful. We will suffer pain. There it is.
The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.
ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.
Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.
Where are you going to get the vaccines from?
From the stock of AZ vaccine already produced and in storage. (I read 20 million somewhere)
The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.
ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.
Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.
The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.
ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.
Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.
Where are you going to get the vaccines from?
Serious question as I have not noticed this discussed.
We know the German Vaccine from Pfizer is being manufactured in Belgium. Where is the Oxford/AZ vaccine being manufactured?
We need Boris to announce on Wed that all schools are closed until end Feb. Otherwise we are up to 100,000 cases a day soon, maybe 200,000.
And can we get on with Oxford approval please? Now???
Why would he do that? Covid transmission has been a self-evident factor since the early days of the pox. We have seen the absurdity of school "Covid secure" rules thrown together with 5 seconds notice and then "who'd have thunk it" virus sweeping through schools. Williamson was trying to take legal action against LEAs who didn't have enough pox free staff to keep schools open just days before announcing a pause in schools opening in january.
The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.
ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.
Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.
Can't disagree with a single word of that. Vaccination is the only game in town and the government needs to put that front and centre. It may well be doing that in the background but it needs to be ramming the message home every day.
On a related note I see Ryanair (I think it was) are the first company to basically put "vaccines are coming!!" in an advert to flog their product.
The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.
ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.
Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.
Where are you going to get the vaccines from?
Serious question as I have not noticed this discussed.
We know the German Vaccine from Pfizer is being manufactured in Belgium. Where is the Oxford/AZ vaccine being manufactured?
The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.
ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.
Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.
Where are you going to get the vaccines from?
@HYUFD - would the British armed forces be capable of occupying Belgium, so as to ensure the UK unfettered access to the Pfizer vaccine?
The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.
ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.
Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.
Where are you going to get the vaccines from?
Serious question as I have not noticed this discussed.
We know the German Vaccine from Pfizer is being manufactured in Belgium. Where is the Oxford/AZ vaccine being manufactured?
Initially in Belgium but large-scale vaccine manufacturing capacity in Britain is nearly ready. Or so I saw in The Times.
We need to treat this the way we treated the making of Spitfires in 1940. Everything depends on this, now. Everything else is peripheral.
As I'm sure many of you are aware @SeanT was one of the first to get Covid in the UK, early in 2020. Sadly, he was afflicted in a way that is becoming all too common:
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also a less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
It's not discrimination as (a) it is based solely on residence not nationality (b) was operated by all the other three home nations, and (c) operates solely by default (ie it was 'introduced' only because the English/UK Gmt withdrew in the first place).
And of course it's still discrimination if it's based on where one lives. It might not be discrimination on a protected characteristic but it's still, vey clearly, anti-English discrimination.
It's about as discriminatory as giving, say, grants to Scottish resident householders for attic insulation, and charging only Scottish residents the Scottish income tax.
It also [edit] hits e.g. Scottish students living in England (logically, as there is no UK legal definition of a Scot - no passport, after all).
And of course the same policy was applied, pari passu, by tyhe other three nations.
The discrinimation thing is a false issue - more important is the basic educational issue.
We need Boris to announce on Wed that all schools are closed until end Feb. Otherwise we are up to 100,000 cases a day soon, maybe 200,000.
And can we get on with Oxford approval please? Now???
It needs to be a 24-7 operation getting the Oxford vaccine out there. 16 hours of organised vaccinations, 8 hours between 11pm to 7.00am where you can just turn up at your local supermarket car park, stick your arms out at a drive-through. For the army of insomniacs out there, worried sick about Covid.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also a less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
It's not discrimination as (a) it is based solely on residence not nationality (b) was operated by all the other three home nations, and (c) operates solely by default (ie it was 'introduced' only because the English/UK Gmt withdrew in the first place).
Though its odd that the Scottish Government chooses to not charge EU citizens their fees, but does charge English ones . . . when if a Scottish student goes to the EU then the arrangement is not reciprocal. Scottish students studying abroad can definitely face tuition fees.
So post-Brexit why should the Scottish Government continue to pay for the education of Europeans - given that Scots going to the continent face fees?
I could understand if the arrangement was based on reciprocity. Students from countries not charging Scottish students fees won't face fees - while those from countries that do charge fees have to pay up like the English.
It was that, if local students were allowed free tuition in Scotland, then students from all other EU nations must also be entitled to the same. The case of discrimination against English students was refused by the EU court, as being an internal U.K. matter.
Indeed but why continue with that post-Brexit?
Why should the Scottish government and universities be more generous to European students than European universities and governments are to their own students and Scottish students?
Post-Brexit the government is entitled to discriminate between EU nations so could say that free tuition would only continue on a reciprocal basis.
Correct, EU universities are now entitled to charge U.K. students the ‘international’ rate.
It will be interesting to see how Scotland reacts. The obvious way is for them to keep free tuition for Scottish students while charging everyone else, which will be a huge Brexit benefit for both Scottish universities and the Scottish Treasury.
I'll be interested too. Obviously the situation has changed well beyond the historic status quo, of which the Scottish policy is simply the last remnant.
Comments
On a serious basis I share your opposition to the death penalty. Don't worry it's not going to happen. No place for it in a civilised society. 👍
Good night.
Article FISH 6
Paragraph 8
"The Parties agree to set up a mechanism for voluntary in-year transfers of fishing
opportunities between the Parties, to take place each year. The Specialised Committee on Fisheries
shall decide on the details of this mechanism. The Parties shall consider making transfers of fishing
opportunities for stocks which are, or are projected to be, underfished available at market value
through this mechanism."
This is exactly what happens at the moment with - currently - any swaps having to be registered with the authorities in advance for the year.
So all that appears to have happened is they have left the detail of the swaps to the Committee which has to be set up anyway to provide oversight to the whole fishing agreement.
Who could have predicted that?
Tho like many slightly bitter break-ups this cuts both ways. The European elite is mildly obsessed with proving what a bad deal we’ve got
But, I think it is a really bad look for a University to say there are free scholarships that will pay your tuition fees, Nigerians not welcome.
I don't think any self-respecting University would want to be associated with such a thing, whether legal or not.
It would be a Ratners moment.
I read somewhere that we would have been required to abandon our backing for Jenner/AZ to join the Eu scheme so we didn’t
One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.
Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.
Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948119/EU-UK_Trade_and_Cooperation_Agreement_24.12.2020.pdf
Amusingly, even though it is published on the EC website, there it is marked
"Distribution only on a ‘Need to know' basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be
stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure
deletion."
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2020/EN/COM-2020-857-F1-EN-ANNEX-1-PART-1.PDF
Union Bank of Switzerland merged with SBC Warburg to form UBS.
But technically UBS doesn’t stand for anything
Edit: I realise that may be misleadingly phrased. Of course I meant the initials “UBS” don’t stand for anything... ahem... as you were
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/future-relationship-trade-deal
Lol. Brexit stings
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/28/russia-admits-to-world-third-worst-covid-19-death-toll-underreported
If it does, would it hold true for Palestinians vaccinated by an Israeli vaccine dose if it were called something else?
Or during the financial crisis - "Unemployed By Spring".
This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from an economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?
The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.
The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.
My favourite was when Deutsche told the partners at Morgan Grenfell that they could no longer answer the phone “Morgan Grenfell” as they were now Deutsche.
So they started answering it “Guten Morgan” instead
But @Philip_Thompson seems to think some great victory was won because the EU moved more than the U.K. without appreciating that that is a silly metric by which to measure success.
I have a Philosophy degree, so I know of which I speak.
I found it useful to read the Institue for Government summary first; subsequent dips into the detailed text have not really added anything worthwhile to my understanding.
This really is boring now.
Remain lost. Leave won. Remain thereafter tried to cancel democracy, but they failed (thank God) and so we are Leaving. Some of this Leaving will be shit, and disappointing, some of it will be good, and energising. It is a major geopolitical rupture, and a new reality dawns. Expect turbulence.
Britain has been around for 2000 years, the EU has been around for 70 years. We will surely endure and we will very likely prosper, in the end. As of now, a temporary trading arrangement with evermore onerous political duties has come to a close. So be it.
You won! Suck it up...
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1343613407052918786?s=20
Buckle up
To be honest, if Remain HAD put that in their campaign literature - you will get sad men moaning at you for twelve years - they might have persuaded me more to their cause.
The GOP is not a serious political party. It just happens to have the position of one.
Will probably end up having to cancel exams, having wasted several months failing to prepare for this highly possible eventuality.
Why would that be, I wonder.
ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.
Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.
And can we get on with Oxford approval please? Now???
There will be a time when we can, at leisure, discuss paragraph 4b.3 of subsection 8 of the reciprocal UK-EU health insurance schemes, but this, I feel, ain't it.
And this is not because I fear scrutiny of Brexit. Brexit was always going to be painful. We will suffer pain. There it is.
https://twitter.com/TimesofIsrael/status/1343642130451890177
Israel has vertainly done better than us with 354 deaths / mill compared to our 1k+.
We know the German Vaccine from Pfizer is being manufactured in Belgium. Where is the Oxford/AZ vaccine being manufactured?
This government doesn't care.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1343682941709398018
I don't say that to try to underplay the problem. But talk of 5,000 deaths a day is hyperbole.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
On a related note I see Ryanair (I think it was) are the first company to basically put "vaccines are coming!!" in an advert to flog their product.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/health-pharma/supply-of-covid-vaccine-doses-held-up-by-manufacturing-delays-1.4430676
We need to treat this the way we treated the making of Spitfires in 1940. Everything depends on this, now. Everything else is peripheral.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/28/health/covid-psychosis-mental.htm
It also [edit] hits e.g. Scottish students living in England (logically, as there is no UK legal definition of a Scot - no passport, after all).
And of course the same policy was applied, pari passu, by tyhe other three nations.
The discrinimation thing is a false issue - more important is the basic educational issue.