Getting the tone of an ad completely wrong – politicalbetting.com

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

dixiedean said:

DavidL said:

The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.

Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.

Oh steady, let's not get too carried away.

A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.

If it were up to me I wouldn't play an England game at Lords during the Ashes at least.

We have more than 5 Test grounds in the country. No reason for every series to incorporate Lords.

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

That definition, which I don’t dispute as a one-liner, leaves an awful lot of use-cases where sovereignty is rather more nuanced.

Anyway, even by that definition, the UK remained the *ultimate* overseer, else it could logically not have Exited. I know you (or perhaps others) don’t like that riposte, but it is legally true.

Nope. For reasons I have just set out in another reply.

Ok, but international law doesn’t agree with you, or your analogy.

The UK was not under colonial control, it continued to exist, was recognised to exist, voluntary joined an organisation to which it agreed to cede certain (but by no means all) functions, and then left on its own steam.

ydoethur said:

Do you know what's really disturbing?

That wasn't South Africa's first choice attack.

MISTY said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers.
I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.

Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).

It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.

I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.

'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'

'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'

'We too can have wars with our farmers....'

'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'



...Should go down well in Stoke...

Theuniondivvie said:

MISTY said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers.
I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.

Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).

It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.

I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.

'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'

'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'

'We too can have wars with our farmers....'

'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'



...Should go down well in Stoke...

In my country it'll be 'These people threatened you with the removal of EU membership in one referendum, completely ignored how you voted in another and think they should get to choose when another referendum takes place. Do you really want to be dictated to by these pricks?'
Or words to that effect.

DavidL said:

dixiedean said:

DavidL said:

The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.

Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.

Oh steady, let's not get too carried away.

A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.

Edit. Looks like an innings. Awful.

Theuniondivvie said:

Driver said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MISTY said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers.
I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.

Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).

It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.

I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.

'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'

'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'

'We too can have wars with our farmers....'

'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'



...Should go down well in Stoke...

In my country it'll be 'These people threatened you with the removal of EU membership in one referendum, completely ignored how you voted in another and think they should get to choose when another referendum takes place. Do you really want to be dictated to by these pricks?'
Or words to that effect.

Good to see you admit it will be driven by Anglophobia.

Twatty Brexiteer Unionist hypocrites and cowards phobia actually; there's a few Scots in that camp.

But please do indulge in some whiny victimhood, it is Friday after all.

rcs1000 said:

carnforth said:

It’s not just energy affecting the trade balance: it’s more than that:



(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)

Can anyone find this data for the UK?

It's not that surprising, though. The EU's trade surplus is largely the consequence of the sale of cars and capital goods. Shortages of chips has crushed the former, while the latter is struggling due to Chinese lockdowns and supply chain issues.

northern_monkey said:

The sovereignty to fill our rivers with shit:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

Gardenwalker said:

MISTY said:

Gardenwalker said:

MISTY said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers.
I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.

Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).

It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.

I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.

'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'

'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'

'We too can have wars with our farmers....'

'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'



...Should go down well in Stoke...

The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.

The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.

You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.

On Rejoin?
I long thought it impossible.

The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.

Driver said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

Only by leaving...

Cookie said:

Gardenwalker said:

MISTY said:

Gardenwalker said:

MISTY said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers.
I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.

Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).

It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.

I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.

'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'

'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'

'We too can have wars with our farmers....'

'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'



...Should go down well in Stoke...

The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.

The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.

You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.

On Rejoin?
I long thought it impossible.

The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.

Funny thing about waiting for the elderly to die off is that it never happens. Because while you're waiting, the young becone middle aged and the middle aged themselves become elderly.

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

carnforth said:

It’s not just energy affecting the trade balance: it’s more than that:



(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)

Can anyone find this data for the UK?

It's not that surprising, though. The EU's trade surplus is largely the consequence of the sale of cars and capital goods. Shortages of chips has crushed the former, while the latter is struggling due to Chinese lockdowns and supply chain issues.

I think the details will take some teasing out - but it's notable, for instance, that Hyundai became the world's third largest car manufacturer this quarter by way of losing less production than all its major competitors.

IshmaelZ said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I’ve just got on a bus from Woodbridge to Chisenbury.

Guess how much it cost

£6.00

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.

Cookie said:

Gardenwalker said:

MISTY said:

Gardenwalker said:

MISTY said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers.
I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.

Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).

It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.

I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.

'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'

'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'

'We too can have wars with our farmers....'

'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'



...Should go down well in Stoke...

The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.

The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.

You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.

On Rejoin?
I long thought it impossible.

The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.

Funny thing about waiting for the elderly to die off is that it never happens. Because while you're waiting, the young becone middle aged and the middle aged themselves become elderly.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

On Topic - in addition to referring to vegetables as "crudité" something which in my many years of living in and visiting the Keystone State yours truly NEVER heard from the lips of ANY Pennsylvanian, Oz also managed to refer to the grocery store where he was filmed shopping as “Wegners” an interesting mashup of two actual eastern PA supermarket chains: Wegmans and Redner's.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.

Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right....

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

carnforth said:

It’s not just energy affecting the trade balance: it’s more than that:



(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)

Can anyone find this data for the UK?

It's not that surprising, though. The EU's trade surplus is largely the consequence of the sale of cars and capital goods. Shortages of chips has crushed the former, while the latter is struggling due to Chinese lockdowns and supply chain issues.

I think the details will take some teasing out - but it's notable, for instance, that Hyundai became the world's third largest car manufacturer this quarter by way of losing less production than all its major competitors.

The sinking of the Felicity Ace also knocked slightly more than $4bn of the 2022 exports number for the Eurozone!

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.

Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.

IshmaelZ said:

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2022/08/19/factory-to-build-subsea-cable-from-sahara-to-devon-approved/

Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved

The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.

Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.

Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”

Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg on the neo colonial issues.

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.

Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.

But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

northern_monkey said:

The sovereignty to fill our rivers with shit:

Brexit is literally shit.

Except Martlesham Creek and the River Deben have been subject of issues over sewage pollution for decades. Indeed back in 2011 there was a report on shellfisheries along the estuary which highlighted the issue of sewage pollution there including the prevalence of ecoli. That's 5 years before we voted to leave the EU.

So your logic is... well, shit.

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.

Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.

But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2022/08/19/factory-to-build-subsea-cable-from-sahara-to-devon-approved/

Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved

The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.

Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.

Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”

Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg on the neo colonial issues.

It is: solar in the Sahara has the potential to make a massive difference to energy security.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

northern_monkey said:

The sovereignty to fill our rivers with shit:

Brexit is literally shit.

Except Martlesham Creek and the River Deben have been subject of issues over sewage pollution for decades. Indeed back in 2011 there was a report on shellfisheries along the estuary which highlighted the issue of sewage pollution there including the prevalence of ecoli. That's 5 years before we voted to leave the EU.

So your logic is... well, shit.

And now there is no authority that can do anything to pressure the UK government into cleaning things up. The EU may not have had much success in the case of this river, but few doubt that EU fines and pressure helped to force the UK to clean up its rivers and beaches over the years. EU rules were tougher than our own. So your argument is also 💩

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

williamglenn said:

Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist

Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo

Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?

Honestly. It’s just bonkers

PJH said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.

Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.

But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.

That's the point though, we still had ultimate sovereignty but we had chosen to pool it with others for a wider shared benefit. It may be argued that the loss of sovereignty wasn't worth the benefit (I disagree) but you can't argue that we had given it up altogether.

If that was the case the same people would also be arguing that we withdraw from all other international associations and agreements because by being members we no longer have full sovereignty. Of course we haven't, and there is no suggestion that the benefits of being in NATO or the WTO don't outweigh the loss of being able to act independently in every circumstance.

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

northern_monkey said:

The sovereignty to fill our rivers with shit:

Brexit is literally shit.

Except Martlesham Creek and the River Deben have been subject of issues over sewage pollution for decades. Indeed back in 2011 there was a report on shellfisheries along the estuary which highlighted the issue of sewage pollution there including the prevalence of ecoli. That's 5 years before we voted to leave the EU.

So your logic is... well, shit.

And now there is no authority that can do anything to pressure the UK government into cleaning things up. The EU may not have had much success in the case of this river, but few doubt that EU fines and pressure helped to force the UK to clean up its rivers and beaches over the years. EU rules were tougher than our own. So your argument is also 💩

I see no reason why democracy in the UK cannot clean up its rivers. If we fail to do so it will be because we chose to prioritise other things.

Cookie said:

Foxy said:

Cookie said:

Gardenwalker said:

MISTY said:

Gardenwalker said:

MISTY said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers.
I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.

Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).

It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.

I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.

'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'

'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'

'We too can have wars with our farmers....'

'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'



...Should go down well in Stoke...

The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.

The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.

You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.

On Rejoin?
I long thought it impossible.

The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.

Funny thing about waiting for the elderly to die off is that it never happens. Because while you're waiting, the young becone middle aged and the middle aged themselves become elderly.

The idea is that the Leave voters are a substantially Boomer cohort, rather than shifting Leave being an age related trait.

Hence it was younger voters who voted against the EU in 1975, while older voters were in favour, and younger voters are now.

There may be some merit to this idea, but actually I think it more likely that half hearted Leave voters will soon see that Brexit is not the solution to the nations ills that they were seeking, but rather the door into a lost decade or two.

And likewise, unenthusiastic remain voters will see that actually the apocalypse didn't happen (barring anything wrought by viruses or megalomaniac dictators).

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.

Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.

But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.

Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.

Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.

Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.

Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.

But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.

Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.

Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.

Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

northern_monkey said:

The sovereignty to fill our rivers with shit:

Brexit is literally shit.

Except Martlesham Creek and the River Deben have been subject of issues over sewage pollution for decades. Indeed back in 2011 there was a report on shellfisheries along the estuary which highlighted the issue of sewage pollution there including the prevalence of ecoli. That's 5 years before we voted to leave the EU.

So your logic is... well, shit.

And now there is no authority that can do anything to pressure the UK government into cleaning things up. The EU may not have had much success in the case of this river, but few doubt that EU fines and pressure helped to force the UK to clean up its rivers and beaches over the years. EU rules were tougher than our own. So your argument is also 💩

I see no reason why democracy in the UK cannot clean up its rivers. If we fail to do so it will be because we chose to prioritise other things.

So far as I know, the rules concerning river pollutants have not changed, and nor have the agencies enforcing them. So the only change is the sudden scatalogical enthusiasm on the part of the continuity remoaners on Twitter.

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2022/08/19/factory-to-build-subsea-cable-from-sahara-to-devon-approved/

Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved

The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.

Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.

Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”

Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg on the neo colonial issues.

It is: solar in the Sahara has the potential to make a massive difference to energy security.

To be honest it would be good to hear from @malcolmg for any reason. I hope he is ok.

darkage said:

If you want an entertaining read in to the problems with local government, the government response to the second commissioners report in to Liverpool City Council is worth a look.
In summary, there were various "problems" at Liverpool Council and government sent in commissioners to sort it out.
Something that keeps on happening across the country (slough, croydon etc)
The commissioners are typically grandee senior local governmnet officers being paid quite a lot of money, well the going rate for a senior management level interim.
In the case of Liverpool, the commissioners are now reporting back to Ministers that, actually, they need more commissioners to be appointed to take over more of the Council's functions.
Ministers are not happy about this and expect to see more progress. And quickly!
But actually, there is little sign of any progress, and lots of problems being unearthed.
So what exactly can the government do now? They've already taken the "nuclear" step of taking over the Council.
The problems being unearthed are perhaps connected to the structural problems with local government financing arrangements and 12 years of cynical government policy making in this regard. chickens coming home to roost, or something like that.
Perhaps the limitations of this model of intervention in local governance are slowly becoming clear.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/liverpool-city-council-commissioners-second-report

Eabhal said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.

Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.

But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.

Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.

Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.

Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.

This is why I find the SNPs argument about "Tory rule" so lazy. In whatever democracy you are in, there are always going to be people who don't get the representation they want.

Tories in the EU. Labour in the UK. Unionists in Scotland. Tories in Edinburgh. Labour voters in Morningside.

Breaking up or supporting these structures in the interest of your personal views is selfish.

IshmaelZ said:

boulay said:

IshmaelZ said:

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2022/08/19/factory-to-build-subsea-cable-from-sahara-to-devon-approved/

Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved

The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.

Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.

Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”

Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg
on the neo colonial issues.

That’s great news. One question though, couldn’t they have saved a lot of money by having it finishing in South Devon or Cornwall rather than having to go round the leg of England?

Not being spree but is there a reason it takes a longer route?

I was wondering that myself, what with the tidal flows round Lands End. Haven't a notion what the answer is. Land is cheaper and planning easier might be the answer.

Luckyguy1983 said:

darkage said:

If you want an entertaining read in to the problems with local government, the government response to the second commissioners report in to Liverpool City Council is worth a look.
In summary, there were various "problems" at Liverpool Council and government sent in commissioners to sort it out.
Something that keeps on happening across the country (slough, croydon etc)
The commissioners are typically grandee senior local governmnet officers being paid quite a lot of money, well the going rate for a senior management level interim.
In the case of Liverpool, the commissioners are now reporting back to Ministers that, actually, they need more commissioners to be appointed to take over more of the Council's functions.
Ministers are not happy about this and expect to see more progress. And quickly!
But actually, there is little sign of any progress, and lots of problems being unearthed.
So what exactly can the government do now? They've already taken the "nuclear" step of taking over the Council.
The problems being unearthed are perhaps connected to the structural problems with local government financing arrangements and 12 years of cynical government policy making in this regard. chickens coming home to roost, or something like that.
Perhaps the limitations of this model of intervention in local governance are slowly becoming clear.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/liverpool-city-council-commissioners-second-report

I have always though behavioural scientists/consultants should be brought in to review British organisations that are dysfunctional. Aubrey Daniels from the US is one who I think is excellent.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.

Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.

But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.

Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.

Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.

Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.

You’re right, pooling works better, I was using Tyndall’s language as cited.

It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.

It was proven in court that British parliamentary statute was inferior to EU writ. The claim that we were still sovereign rests on the fact that leaving was permitted. So we've exercised that right and left. If doing so was to all intents and purposes an impossibility, then it can only have been a fig leaf of sovereignty. If it was always an inbuilt feature, you should be delighted - let member states come and go whenever they like and exercise all that lovely sovereignty the EU gives them.

LostPassword said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

northern_monkey said:

The sovereignty to fill our rivers with shit:

Brexit is literally shit.

Except Martlesham Creek and the River Deben have been subject of issues over sewage pollution for decades. Indeed back in 2011 there was a report on shellfisheries along the estuary which highlighted the issue of sewage pollution there including the prevalence of ecoli. That's 5 years before we voted to leave the EU.

So your logic is... well, shit.

And now there is no authority that can do anything to pressure the UK government into cleaning things up. The EU may not have had much success in the case of this river, but few doubt that EU fines and pressure helped to force the UK to clean up its rivers and beaches over the years. EU rules were tougher than our own. So your argument is also 💩

I see no reason why democracy in the UK cannot clean up its rivers. If we fail to do so it will be because we chose to prioritise other things.

So far as I know, the rules concerning river pollutants have not changed, and nor have the agencies enforcing them. So the only change is the sudden scatalogical enthusiasm on the part of the continuity remoaners on Twitter.

People have been pointing out that we need to do something to stop storm water from causing sewage overflows for decades. The EU neither forced us, or prevented us, from tackling this. Like with many things out was a failure of our own government.

Carnyx said:

This thread has lost its sovereignty.

williamglenn said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.

Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.

But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.

Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.

Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.

Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.

As I understand it you’re against neoliberal economics, so why are you so wedded to a system that entrenches a settlement you don’t like?