The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.
Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.
Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.
Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.
Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.
The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
We could have what almost every other English speaking Common Law Parliamentary democracy in the world has, which is a domestic Supreme Court. Its good enough for Australia and Canada and New Zealand. There's nothing special about simply by an accident of geography happening to be in Europe which means we need to be in the ECHR in my view.
I'm ambivalent as to whether we stay or go, either are legitimate choices. Out of sheer inertia I'd probably say we should stay in it, but there's no philosophical reason why its better than a domestic Supreme Court.
The thing is it is not just the Court. It is the Convention as well. You cannot be a signatory to the Convention without accepting the jurisdiction of the court.
Which is why when people say it was created by Churchill it is false. What Churchill designed was a Convention that was signed multinationally but enforced domestically. There was no international overriding of Parliament in Churchill's day, the Court came later.
No reason why we couldn't revert IMHO to a modernised version of what Churchill had, which would be an equivalent Convention enforced in the UK Supreme Court.
I don't particularly think we should leave the Convention, but if we were to do so I wouldn't object either, so long as we had a domestic alternative put in its place. I'm agnostic over it.
That is simply not true. The Convention that Churchill designed with Mitterand and Adenauer and subsequently signed explicitly included the Court to oversee and adjudicate. The fact that it took a further 6 years to actually come into existence does not mean it was not part of the convention from the start nor that Churchill did not approve of it. It was a Briton, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who devised the convention and Churchill signed the declaration bringing it into existence at the end of the 1948 Congress that created both the Convention and the Court.
"We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought, assembly and expression as well as right to form a political opposition. We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter."
I stand corrected, I was wrong.
Still, no reason why IMHO we need an international Court on Justice instead of a domestic Supreme Court like other Parliamentary Common Law democracies.
As far as the ECtHR is concerned, it has failed to stand up to countries (like Russia) that remain signatories but disregard human rights.
Perhaps because the other Democracies you allude to have never sought to bind their neighbours to their own vision of democracy and law through a voluntary convention. We chose to devise a system to ensure that our neighbours adhered to a set of standards that we wished to promote. It seems perverse for us to now disown those standards and that system for petty party political advantage - which is all this is really about.
We chose to bind all sorts of other countries in the past to our visions, its imperialistic and we've largely turned our back on that.
We also have a domestic principle that no Parliament can bind its successors, so if any Parliament votes to change the decisions of the past, that is entirely democratic.
I don't find it at all perverse to disown standards if those standards no long suit our interests or the modern world. Our closest friends and allies that share our principles of Parliamentary democracy aren't even a part of the ECHR anyway, so there's no real reason other than basic inertia why we have to be.
Surely the current problem for the government is not the interim orders of the European Court of Human Rights but the decision of the Court of Appeal. Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses that decision no one is going anywhere.
Whilst it is true that the CA decision was based fairly heavily upon the Convention it is not easy to conceive of a UK bill of rights that might be construed differently.
The Tories would be better advised to drop this idiocy and it’s architect.
The main problem is what the ECHR is rather than what it was envisaged to be. There should be no casewise appeal to the ECHR, although those same cases can and should be used in evidence to correct the paths of errant governments.
There has undoubtedly been mission creep on the part of the Court which has resulted in some fairly irrational decisions. It is also telling they have yet to rule on asylum seekers being handed over to Libyan pirates or coastguards to be enslaved by various EU countries.
But I remain of the view that this is so not worth it. To restart the process of defining the limits of our rights with a UK Bill of Rights would benefit no one other than HR lawyers.
To be fair, the EU countries are not handing over African asylum seekers to the Libyan Coastguard to enslave.
They are paying the Libyans to do all the work - the catching, the imprisonment, the lot.
And it is happening out with the jurisdiction of the court. By countries who are subject to it. So that’s alright.
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
The Tories must be getting desperate. So desperate, I expect to see the following headline in the DM or DT any day now: Exclusive: Starmer failed to prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
Well it’s true, he didn’t prosecute her. Can’t say fairer than that. He also failed to prosecute Anders Breivik, and the DPP didn’t even open a file on Osama Bin Laden.
Presumably he also has a sister who is a thespian?
Man who killed California store owner tore down Pride flag and shouted slurs
Shooter had history of posting hateful content online, sheriff says, and shot Laura Ann Carleton with gun not registered to him
A 27-year-old man who fatally shot a store owner in California had torn down her Pride flag and shouted homophobic slurs, officials said on Monday.
Laura Ann Carleton, 66, who went by “Lauri”, died at the scene of the shooting on Friday outside her Mag.Pi clothing store in Cedar Glen, an unincorporated community in the mountains roughly 60 miles (100km) east of Los Angeles.
San Bernardino’s county sheriff, Shannon Dicus, identified the shooter as Travis Ikeguchi in a Monday press conference. Ikeguchi fled on foot, and when he was confronted by officers, he opened fire on them and hit multiple squad cars, Dicus said. Sheriff’s deputies fired back and fatally shot Ikeguchi a mile from the store.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
So again 37% still back Brexit, plus add what rejoin would require ie restoration of free movement and may require ie the Euro and economic policy and interest rates set in Frankfurt and those numbers would soon decline.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
You quote the figure w/o DK/WNV in your first sentence, yet figures with DK/WNV in your second.
Either one or the other please!
If you want to add DKs that cuts the figures for those who oppose Brexit too.
The Tories would of course love Starmer to fight a general election on Brexit, that automatically brings most of the RefUK vote back in their column and gives Sunak a good chance of holding most of the redwall seats too.
Yes it might help the LDs gain Tory seats in the bluewall but that doesn't do much for Starmer's prospects of a majority does it!
On the basis of this polling most red wall seats would now be majority rejoin.
Since referendums are often a verdict on the government of the day rather than the substantive issue why wouldn’t you think referendum polling is the same?
Surely all the more reason Brexit isn’t going to save the red wall for Rishi in the next election.
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
There is a dilemma though about language. Everyone knows that Wittgenstein says: "The meaning of a word is its use in the language”. Which is fair enough, until you think: Unless each word in that sentence has some sort of fixity, how can I know what Wittgenstein might mean? In which case he is wrong.
What he means by meaning is the way he uses meaning, just like I am. EDIT I hope that clarifies what I mean.
I prefer Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
Only Norn Iron benefits.
What's good enough for Belfast should be available to Bangor, Birmingham, and Banff.
It’s possible NZFirst (NZ’s answer to UKIP) might return to parliament, they are polling just shy of the 5% threshold.
If they do, then National/Act are reduced to a majority of 1 under the latest poll, and they would typically need to nominate a Speaker beside.
Having said that, Labour look screwed. There’s a lesson in here for Keir somewhere. Labour/Ardern came to power with great hopes, but their governance has been inept and beholden to incredibly sloppy, left-wing dogma.
The country is in a kind of cultural impasse and although National/Act don’t look to be offering much there might be a return of some kind of grip.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
So again 37% still back Brexit, plus add what rejoin would require ie restoration of free movement and may require ie the Euro and economic policy and interest rates set in Frankfurt and those numbers would soon decline.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
You quote the figure w/o DK/WNV in your first sentence, yet figures with DK/WNV in your second.
Either one or the other please!
If you want to add DKs that cuts the figures for those who oppose Brexit too.
The Tories would of course love Starmer to fight a general election on Brexit, that automatically brings most of the RefUK vote back in their column and gives Sunak a good chance of holding most of the redwall seats too.
Yes it might help the LDs gain Tory seats in the bluewall but that doesn't do much for Starmer's prospects of a majority does it!
On the basis of this polling most red wall seats would now be majority rejoin.
No they wouldn't, most redwall seats were 60-70% Leave and Starmer couldn't become PM without them.
Plus the rejoin vote would split between Labour and the LDs while the keep Brexit vote would largely stick with the Conservatives
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
There is a dilemma though about language. Everyone knows that Wittgenstein says: "The meaning of a word is its use in the language”. Which is fair enough, until you think: Unless each word in that sentence has some sort of fixity, how can I know what Wittgenstein might mean? In which case he is wrong.
What he means by meaning is the way he uses meaning, just like I am. EDIT I hope that clarifies what I mean.
I prefer Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
I know it is attributed as a far more recent theme, but it seems to tie in with G3 to me.
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
How is any of it a "hill to die on"?
I don't correct anyone (except my Dad who used to correct me, and my nephew who needs my help given how bad my sister's grammar can be) (oh, and my Russian friend, because she wants me to, but never in front of anyone else)
But I'll argue all day for the upholding of linguistic and grammatical standards in our formal language
Less to mean fewer should have (informal) after it in the dictionary
Well, quite. I am a dreadful oik, wrong kind of school, never voted for the natural party of government, not part of the Anglican communion - hell, I'm not even English! I know, I shouldn't even be on here. I shouldn't even exist! So when I come here I do expect to see my betters setting an example, grammar-wise. I know we live in a world of declining standards, but is that too much to ask?
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
If there's no confidence in the current government then its a good job we've Brexited and have full democracy now where we can change course if we vote for new policies rather than having them stuck unchangeable by an unaccountable and unelected European Commission.
And if foreign investment levels is the metric then not only is the UK growing faster than Germany, but the UK also received more FDI than Germany last year. Despite the fact they're a more populous nation.
Maybe they need to Brexit (Dexit?) too to catch up with us?
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
Which is quite something when you think it’s supposedly a conservative government.
Surely the current problem for the government is not the interim orders of the European Court of Human Rights but the decision of the Court of Appeal. Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses that decision no one is going anywhere.
Whilst it is true that the CA decision was based fairly heavily upon the Convention it is not easy to conceive of a UK bill of rights that might be construed differently.
The Tories would be better advised to drop this idiocy and it’s architect.
The main problem is what the ECHR is rather than what it was envisaged to be. There should be no casewise appeal to the ECHR, although those same cases can and should be used in evidence to correct the paths of errant governments.
There has undoubtedly been mission creep on the part of the Court which has resulted in some fairly irrational decisions. It is also telling they have yet to rule on asylum seekers being handed over to Libyan pirates or coastguards to be enslaved by various EU countries.
But I remain of the view that this is so not worth it. To restart the process of defining the limits of our rights with a UK Bill of Rights would benefit no one other than HR lawyers.
To be fair, the EU countries are not handing over African asylum seekers to the Libyan Coastguard to enslave.
They are paying the Libyans to do all the work - the catching, the imprisonment, the lot.
And it is happening out with the jurisdiction of the court. By countries who are subject to it. So that’s alright.
Surely the current problem for the government is not the interim orders of the European Court of Human Rights but the decision of the Court of Appeal. Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses that decision no one is going anywhere.
Whilst it is true that the CA decision was based fairly heavily upon the Convention it is not easy to conceive of a UK bill of rights that might be construed differently.
The Tories would be better advised to drop this idiocy and it’s architect.
The main problem is what the ECHR is rather than what it was envisaged to be. There should be no casewise appeal to the ECHR, although those same cases can and should be used in evidence to correct the paths of errant governments.
There has undoubtedly been mission creep on the part of the Court which has resulted in some fairly irrational decisions. It is also telling they have yet to rule on asylum seekers being handed over to Libyan pirates or coastguards to be enslaved by various EU countries.
But I remain of the view that this is so not worth it. To restart the process of defining the limits of our rights with a UK Bill of Rights would benefit no one other than HR lawyers.
To be fair, the EU countries are not handing over African asylum seekers to the Libyan Coastguard to enslave.
They are paying the Libyans to do all the work - the catching, the imprisonment, the lot.
And it is happening out with the jurisdiction of the court. By countries who are subject to it. So that’s alright.
I’ve heard it stated that the entire system was designed to be outside legal review/process inside the EU and the participant countries themselves.
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
Which is quite something when you think it’s supposedly a conservative government.
A total lost cause supporting this bunch.
It’s still essentially the “fuck business” government, even if Sunak himself is an unlikely figurehead of such.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
Odd analogy. I’d argue that Canadians are far more “American” than Brits are “European”.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
But Canadians *are* American. Canada is in North America isn't it? The problem is what we call the United Statesians.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
Odd analogy. I’d argue that Canadians are far more “American” than Brits are “European”.
Canada is not yearning to join the USA, they are quite comfortable being Canadian.
Ditto we too are are British/English depending upon your perspective not European as in the EU.
Europe is our continent, not our nationality. Like Canada/USA.
Jacinda really screwed the pooch in NZ. She had the country in her hands and lost the plot over Covid, by implying a ludicrous myth than somehow NZ would be immune to its spread.
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
There is a dilemma though about language. Everyone knows that Wittgenstein says: "The meaning of a word is its use in the language”. Which is fair enough, until you think: Unless each word in that sentence has some sort of fixity, how can I know what Wittgenstein might mean? In which case he is wrong.
What he means by meaning is the way he uses meaning, just like I am. EDIT I hope that clarifies what I mean.
I prefer Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Dear Humpty is wrong and (in this case if few others) Wittgenstein is right. There is no such thing as a private language that can function as a language. Humpty's audience would have to guess what he means in this and every other utterance. His utterance here may simply mean he wants fish for lunch - but then what would that mean if there is no fixity?
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
Jacinda really screwed the pooch in NZ. She had the country in her hands and lost the plot over Covid, by implying a ludicrous myth than somehow NZ would be immune to its spread.
That is not really the story. Although there is definitely a strain of libertarian resistance to Covid-era policy in NZ opinion, the main objection to Jacinda was that she was just not competent at governance.
All the major public services began declining almost immediately, and well before Covid. Post Covid, of course, they are now in steep decline.
Despite significant increase in public sector employment and government spending.
Jacinda/Labour were/are also beholden to a “Māori co-governance” agenda, which has led them to some quite anti-democratic policy. Stuff that PBers would go absolutely mental over.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Geography and geology require us to be Europeans, and yes, culturally we are thankfully part of that common culture from Homer to Charlemagne to Erasmus to Prokofiev. Nothing about that ties us to a European state or a common imperium. Attempts by Napoleon, the Soviets and the Nazis to create one have not be reassuring.
It’s possible NZFirst (NZ’s answer to UKIP) might return to parliament, they are polling just shy of the 5% threshold.
If they do, then National/Act are reduced to a majority of 1 under the latest poll, and they would typically need to nominate a Speaker beside.
Having said that, Labour look screwed. There’s a lesson in here for Keir somewhere. Labour/Ardern came to power with great hopes, but their governance has been inept and beholden to incredibly sloppy, left-wing dogma.
The country is in a kind of cultural impasse and although National/Act don’t look to be offering much there might be a return of some kind of grip.
But everyone on social media fucking loved Ardern, so much so she disappeared up her own arsehole, so at least she felt canonised by it.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
Odd analogy. I’d argue that Canadians are far more “American” than Brits are “European”.
Canada is not yearning to join the USA, they are quite comfortable being Canadian.
Ditto we too are are British/English depending upon your perspective not European as in the EU.
Europe is our continent, not our nationality. Like Canada/USA.
Give it up, you’re not convincing anyone. I’m not even sure you believe this stuff yourself.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
So again 37% still back Brexit, plus add what rejoin would require ie restoration of free movement and may require ie the Euro and economic policy and interest rates set in Frankfurt and those numbers would soon decline.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
You quote the figure w/o DK/WNV in your first sentence, yet figures with DK/WNV in your second.
Either one or the other please!
If you want to add DKs that cuts the figures for those who oppose Brexit too.
The Tories would of course love Starmer to fight a general election on Brexit, that automatically brings most of the RefUK vote back in their column and gives Sunak a good chance of holding most of the redwall seats too.
Yes it might help the LDs gain Tory seats in the bluewall but that doesn't do much for Starmer's prospects of a majority does it!
On the basis of this polling most red wall seats would now be majority rejoin.
No they wouldn't, most redwall seats were 60-70% Leave and Starmer couldn't become PM without them.
Plus the rejoin vote would split between Labour and the LDs while the keep Brexit vote would largely stick with the Conservatives
In the red wall the Lib Dems are as scarce as red squirrels.
If a seat was sat 65% leave last time then based on the polling shift since it’s now about 53% leave (at best) now, and not that many seats were that Brexity.
Jacinda really screwed the pooch in NZ. She had the country in her hands and lost the plot over Covid, by implying a ludicrous myth than somehow NZ would be immune to its spread.
That is not really the story. Although there is definitely a strain of libertarian resistance to Covid-era policy in NZ opinion, the main objection to Jacinda was that she was just not competent at governance.
All the major public services began declining almost immediately, and well before Covid. Post Covid, of course, they are now in steep decline.
Despite significant increase in public sector employment and government spending.
Jacinda/Labour were/are also beholden to a “Māori co-governance” agenda, which has led them to some quite anti-democratic policy. Stuff that PBers would go absolutely mental over.
I’m sure that’s true, too. However, she went bat shit crazy over Covid, which exposed her as a bit crap.
There were points - as I recall, and I might have misremembered the details - where the quarantine rules for being caught near someone with covid were longer, by a chalk, than actually HAVING Covid.
It’s possible NZFirst (NZ’s answer to UKIP) might return to parliament, they are polling just shy of the 5% threshold.
If they do, then National/Act are reduced to a majority of 1 under the latest poll, and they would typically need to nominate a Speaker beside.
Having said that, Labour look screwed. There’s a lesson in here for Keir somewhere. Labour/Ardern came to power with great hopes, but their governance has been inept and beholden to incredibly sloppy, left-wing dogma.
The country is in a kind of cultural impasse and although National/Act don’t look to be offering much there might be a return of some kind of grip.
But everyone on social media fucking loved Ardern, so much so she disappeared up her own arsehole, so at least she felt canonised by it.
She became a victim of her own hype. I had friends who bought into it. It was really quite alarming.
I wonder which Canadian provinces would be richer as US states. The ones without mineral resources? All of them? Is there a fringe group advocating it?
Jacinda really screwed the pooch in NZ. She had the country in her hands and lost the plot over Covid, by implying a ludicrous myth than somehow NZ would be immune to its spread.
That is not really the story. Although there is definitely a strain of libertarian resistance to Covid-era policy in NZ opinion, the main objection to Jacinda was that she was just not competent at governance.
All the major public services began declining almost immediately, and well before Covid. Post Covid, of course, they are now in steep decline.
Despite significant increase in public sector employment and government spending.
Jacinda/Labour were/are also beholden to a “Māori co-governance” agenda, which has led them to some quite anti-democratic policy. Stuff that PBers would go absolutely mental over.
One wonders if that's influencing polling on the Australian Voice referendum at the moment.
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
See Figure 1. As usual, when you look at the actual figures, there is no evidence that Brexit has made either a positive or negative effect on UK attractiveness. The trends, with some flattening during Covid, continue as before.
Jacinda really screwed the pooch in NZ. She had the country in her hands and lost the plot over Covid, by implying a ludicrous myth than somehow NZ would be immune to its spread.
That is not really the story. Although there is definitely a strain of libertarian resistance to Covid-era policy in NZ opinion, the main objection to Jacinda was that she was just not competent at governance.
All the major public services began declining almost immediately, and well before Covid. Post Covid, of course, they are now in steep decline.
Despite significant increase in public sector employment and government spending.
Jacinda/Labour were/are also beholden to a “Māori co-governance” agenda, which has led them to some quite anti-democratic policy. Stuff that PBers would go absolutely mental over.
One wonders if that's influencing polling on the Australian Voice referendum at the moment.
I suspect it is, although I am not following the Australian debate.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
Odd analogy. I’d argue that Canadians are far more “American” than Brits are “European”.
On topic, I don't think the EHCR is going to move many votes. Those who are its biggest supporters are likely hardcore Remainers, who have sworn off the Conservatives for the time being.
There may be the opportunity to win back a few votes from Reform over the issue; the problem is that too many of that group think that Rishi is an EU sellout for... for... for something or another. Maybe leaving the EHCR tickles their erogenous zones.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
Odd analogy. I’d argue that Canadians are far more “American” than Brits are “European”.
Same international dialling code!
90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border. More than half live south of Seattle.
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
See Figure 1. As usual, when you look at the actual figures, there is no evidence that Brexit has made either a positive or negative effect on UK attractiveness. The trends, with some flattening during Covid, continue as before.
Why on earth do you think a bulletin about FDI in 2021 demonstrates anything?
As always your myopia on this subject is positively Freudian.
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
How is any of it a "hill to die on"?
I don't correct anyone (except my Dad who used to correct me, and my nephew who needs my help given how bad my sister's grammar can be) (oh, and my Russian friend, because she wants me to, but never in front of anyone else)
But I'll argue all day for the upholding of linguistic and grammatical standards in our formal language
Less to mean fewer should have (informal) after it in the dictionary
Well, quite. I am a dreadful oik, wrong kind of school, never voted for the natural party of government, not part of the Anglican communion - hell, I'm not even English! I know, I shouldn't even be on here. I shouldn't even exist! So when I come here I do expect to see my betters setting an example, grammar-wise. I know we live in a world of declining standards, but is that too much to ask?
We all have a right to exist; we just need to know our place
I know mine: it's carrying your mail
You're spot on about the standard we should expect here
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
See Figure 1. As usual, when you look at the actual figures, there is no evidence that Brexit has made either a positive or negative effect on UK attractiveness. The trends, with some flattening during Covid, continue as before.
Why on earth do you think a bulletin about FDI in 2021 demonstrates anything?
As always your myopia on this subject is positively Freudian.
Because it is the most up to date figures that we have. Except those in your imagination, of course.
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
See Figure 1. As usual, when you look at the actual figures, there is no evidence that Brexit has made either a positive or negative effect on UK attractiveness. The trends, with some flattening during Covid, continue as before.
Why on earth do you think a bulletin about FDI in 2021 demonstrates anything?
As always your myopia on this subject is positively Freudian.
Because it is the most up to date figures that we have. Except those in your imagination, of course.
Google has numerous links to analysis of UK FDI post Brexit, I suggest you take a look.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Odd. Brits think they have far more in common with Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians than they do with the French, Czechs and Slovenians and they vote with their feet accordingly.
The British position has been the same for centuries: we are a maritime trading nation that trades both globally and continentally and has a strong interest in a maintaining a balance of power in Europe and secure global sea routes in order to prosper.
Geography is key but not all in one direction like you think it is.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
So again 37% still back Brexit, plus add what rejoin would require ie restoration of free movement and may require ie the Euro and economic policy and interest rates set in Frankfurt and those numbers would soon decline.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
You quote the figure w/o DK/WNV in your first sentence, yet figures with DK/WNV in your second.
Either one or the other please!
If you want to add DKs that cuts the figures for those who oppose Brexit too.
The Tories would of course love Starmer to fight a general election on Brexit, that automatically brings most of the RefUK vote back in their column and gives Sunak a good chance of holding most of the redwall seats too.
Yes it might help the LDs gain Tory seats in the bluewall but that doesn't do much for Starmer's prospects of a majority does it!
On the basis of this polling most red wall seats would now be majority rejoin.
No they wouldn't, most redwall seats were 60-70% Leave and Starmer couldn't become PM without them.
Plus the rejoin vote would split between Labour and the LDs while the keep Brexit vote would largely stick with the Conservatives
In the red wall the Lib Dems are as scarce as red squirrels.
If a seat was sat 65% leave last time then based on the polling shift since it’s now about 53% leave (at best) now, and not that many seats were that Brexity.
So even 5% for the LDs in a now 50% Leave seat hands the seat to the Tories then
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
See Figure 1. As usual, when you look at the actual figures, there is no evidence that Brexit has made either a positive or negative effect on UK attractiveness. The trends, with some flattening during Covid, continue as before.
Why on earth do you think a bulletin about FDI in 2021 demonstrates anything?
As always your myopia on this subject is positively Freudian.
Because it is the most up to date figures that we have. Except those in your imagination, of course.
Google has numerous links to analysis of UK FDI post Brexit, I suggest you take a look.
I did and gave you the figures. But you want to believe otherwise and prefer anecdotes that meet your prejudices.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
So again 37% still back Brexit, plus add what rejoin would require ie restoration of free movement and may require ie the Euro and economic policy and interest rates set in Frankfurt and those numbers would soon decline.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe.
We even share the same King and language and common law and Westminster style democracy heritage and watch many of the same TV programmes
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Odd. Brits think they have far more in common with Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians than they do with the French, Czechs and Slovenians and they vote with their feet accordingly.
The British position has been the same for centuries: we are a maritime trading nation that trades both globally and continentally and has a strong interest in a maintaining a balance of power in Europe and secure global sea routes in order to prosper.
Geography is key but not all in one direction like you think it is.
"British". A word that begs a huge amount.
Your position would make much more sense if the "British"
(a) still had a mercantile marine (b) had a government which worried about the balance of payments (c) ditto industry (d) ditto energy security (e) didn't sell off the UK's capital to outsiders (f) didn't run down the armed forces
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
More in common with France than New Zealand? Are you having a laugh?
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
How is any of it a "hill to die on"?
I don't correct anyone (except my Dad who used to correct me, and my nephew who needs my help given how bad my sister's grammar can be) (oh, and my Russian friend, because she wants me to, but never in front of anyone else)
But I'll argue all day for the upholding of linguistic and grammatical standards in our formal language
Less to mean fewer should have (informal) after it in the dictionary
Well, quite. I am a dreadful oik, wrong kind of school, never voted for the natural party of government, not part of the Anglican communion - hell, I'm not even English! I know, I shouldn't even be on here. I shouldn't even exist! So when I come here I do expect to see my betters setting an example, grammar-wise. I know we live in a world of declining standards, but is that too much to ask?
We all have a right to exist; we just need to know our place
I know mine: it's carrying your mail
You're spot on about the standard we should expect here
I do miss Leon's erudition
To be clear, I mean his linguistic erudition and how he uses our language so skilfully
Even if one disagrees with everything he writes, it's hard not to be at least a little impressed by the way he writes it
Jacinda really screwed the pooch in NZ. She had the country in her hands and lost the plot over Covid, by implying a ludicrous myth than somehow NZ would be immune to its spread.
That is not really the story. Although there is definitely a strain of libertarian resistance to Covid-era policy in NZ opinion, the main objection to Jacinda was that she was just not competent at governance.
All the major public services began declining almost immediately, and well before Covid. Post Covid, of course, they are now in steep decline.
Despite significant increase in public sector employment and government spending.
Jacinda/Labour were/are also beholden to a “Māori co-governance” agenda, which has led them to some quite anti-democratic policy. Stuff that PBers would go absolutely mental over.
One wonders if that's influencing polling on the Australian Voice referendum at the moment.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
Odd analogy. I’d argue that Canadians are far more “American” than Brits are “European”.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe
That's what used to be said, before Gallipoli, Tobruk and Singapore.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is not dead and those who try and ignore it are doomed to relive its lessons all over again.
It happened because a huge constituency of eurosceptic opinion in this country was ignored for far too long, by both the UK and the EU, with stultifying level of pomposity, arrogance and self-servedness that patronised them to boot.
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
How is any of it a "hill to die on"?
I don't correct anyone (except my Dad who used to correct me, and my nephew who needs my help given how bad my sister's grammar can be) (oh, and my Russian friend, because she wants me to, but never in front of anyone else)
But I'll argue all day for the upholding of linguistic and grammatical standards in our formal language
Less to mean fewer should have (informal) after it in the dictionary
Well, quite. I am a dreadful oik, wrong kind of school, never voted for the natural party of government, not part of the Anglican communion - hell, I'm not even English! I know, I shouldn't even be on here. I shouldn't even exist! So when I come here I do expect to see my betters setting an example, grammar-wise. I know we live in a world of declining standards, but is that too much to ask?
We all have a right to exist; we just need to know our place
I know mine: it's carrying your mail
You're spot on about the standard we should expect here
I do miss Leon's erudition
I with Blanche. I understand what is meant by "less dogs" for example, but it just sounds clunky and awkward. Why use a clunky and awkward word when there is one made for the purpose?
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Odd. Brits think they have far more in common with Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians than they do with the French, Czechs and Slovenians and they vote with their feet accordingly.
The British position has been the same for centuries: we are a maritime trading nation that trades both globally and continentally and has a strong interest in a maintaining a balance of power in Europe and secure global sea routes in order to prosper.
Geography is key but not all in one direction like you think it is.
"British". A word that begs a huge amount.
Your position would make much more sense if the "British"
(a) still had a mercantile marine (b) had a government which worried about the balance of payments (c) ditto industry (d) ditto energy security (e) didn't sell off the UK's capital to outsiders (f) didn't run down the armed forces
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
How is any of it a "hill to die on"?
I don't correct anyone (except my Dad who used to correct me, and my nephew who needs my help given how bad my sister's grammar can be) (oh, and my Russian friend, because she wants me to, but never in front of anyone else)
But I'll argue all day for the upholding of linguistic and grammatical standards in our formal language
Less to mean fewer should have (informal) after it in the dictionary
Well, quite. I am a dreadful oik, wrong kind of school, never voted for the natural party of government, not part of the Anglican communion - hell, I'm not even English! I know, I shouldn't even be on here. I shouldn't even exist! So when I come here I do expect to see my betters setting an example, grammar-wise. I know we live in a world of declining standards, but is that too much to ask?
We all have a right to exist; we just need to know our place
I know mine: it's carrying your mail
You're spot on about the standard we should expect here
I do miss Leon's erudition
There is however a case for using less where the quantity does not have a concrete existence. A continuous variable.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe.
We even share the same King and language and common law and Westminster style democracy heritage and watch many of the same TV programmes
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe.
We even share the same King and language and common law and Westminster style democracy heritage and watch many of the same TV programmes
So what?
Who's this "we"? As a Scot I certainly don't share the same legal system.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Odd. Brits think they have far more in common with Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians than they do with the French, Czechs and Slovenians and they vote with their feet accordingly.
The British position has been the same for centuries: we are a maritime trading nation that trades both globally and continentally and has a strong interest in a maintaining a balance of power in Europe and secure global sea routes in order to prosper.
Geography is key but not all in one direction like you think it is.
And yet, despite all of that (which isn't false but I do think it is more complicated than that), Brexit is unpopular and increasingly so.
It's really not my job to work out why, or what to do about that. Which is probably for the best, because I haven't got a clue where to begin.
(I suspect the answer is that there's nothing to be done about it. The mental map for those who grew up after about 1973 is just different to that of those who grew up post war but pre-EEC membership. And changing people's mental maps is damn difficult.)
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
How is any of it a "hill to die on"?
I don't correct anyone (except my Dad who used to correct me, and my nephew who needs my help given how bad my sister's grammar can be) (oh, and my Russian friend, because she wants me to, but never in front of anyone else)
But I'll argue all day for the upholding of linguistic and grammatical standards in our formal language
Less to mean fewer should have (informal) after it in the dictionary
Well, quite. I am a dreadful oik, wrong kind of school, never voted for the natural party of government, not part of the Anglican communion - hell, I'm not even English! I know, I shouldn't even be on here. I shouldn't even exist! So when I come here I do expect to see my betters setting an example, grammar-wise. I know we live in a world of declining standards, but is that too much to ask?
We all have a right to exist; we just need to know our place
I know mine: it's carrying your mail
You're spot on about the standard we should expect here
I do miss Leon's erudition
There is however a case for using less where the quantity does not have a concrete existence. A continuous variable.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe
That's what used to be said, before Gallipoli, Tobruk and Singapore.
Just ask the Australians.
Yes they voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999 and Australia remains the main emigration destination for Brits.
So the ties that bound us together to defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WW2 remain
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Odd. Brits think they have far more in common with Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians than they do with the French, Czechs and Slovenians and they vote with their feet accordingly.
The British position has been the same for centuries: we are a maritime trading nation that trades both globally and continentally and has a strong interest in a maintaining a balance of power in Europe and secure global sea routes in order to prosper.
Geography is key but not all in one direction like you think it is.
And yet, despite all of that (which isn't false but I do think it is more complicated than that), Brexit is unpopular and increasingly so.
It's really not my job to work out why, or what to do about that. Which is probably for the best, because I haven't got a clue where to begin.
(I suspect the answer is that there's nothing to be done about it. The mental map for those who grew up after about 1973 is just different to that of those who grew up post war but pre-EEC membership. And changing people's mental maps is damn difficult.)
So unreasonable for the Brexiters to proclaim how stupid the people are. They didn;t say that in 2017-2020, either.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe.
We even share the same King and language and common law and Westminster style democracy heritage and watch many of the same TV programmes
So what?
Who's this "we"? As a Scot I certainly don't share the same legal system.
There is still plenty of common law in Scotland and the UK Supreme Court is the highest court in Scotland as much as England
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
See Figure 1. As usual, when you look at the actual figures, there is no evidence that Brexit has made either a positive or negative effect on UK attractiveness. The trends, with some flattening during Covid, continue as before.
Why on earth do you think a bulletin about FDI in 2021 demonstrates anything?
As always your myopia on this subject is positively Freudian.
Because it is the most up to date figures that we have. Except those in your imagination, of course.
Google has numerous links to analysis of UK FDI post Brexit, I suggest you take a look.
I did and gave you the figures. But you want to believe otherwise and prefer anecdotes that meet your prejudices.
In the first quarter of 2023, real business investment in the UK remained over 1% below its peak in third quarter 2016.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Hahahaha. You just keep believing that if it makes you feel better. You and I and everyone else on this board will be long dead before we renew ties with the EU.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe.
We even share the same King and language and common law and Westminster style democracy heritage and watch many of the same TV programmes
So what?
Who's this "we"? As a Scot I certainly don't share the same legal system.
There is still plenty of common law in Scotland and the UK Supreme Court is the highest court in Scotland as much as England
Radically differenmt law. To the degree that the DM got sued by someone who got done for incest in Scotland by following its legal advice column - which was based solely on English (and, at the time, Welsh) law.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Odd. Brits think they have far more in common with Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians than they do with the French, Czechs and Slovenians and they vote with their feet accordingly.
The British position has been the same for centuries: we are a maritime trading nation that trades both globally and continentally and has a strong interest in a maintaining a balance of power in Europe and secure global sea routes in order to prosper.
Geography is key but not all in one direction like you think it is.
And yet, despite all of that (which isn't false but I do think it is more complicated than that), Brexit is unpopular and increasingly so.
It's really not my job to work out why, or what to do about that. Which is probably for the best, because I haven't got a clue where to begin.
(I suspect the answer is that there's nothing to be done about it. The mental map for those who grew up after about 1973 is just different to that of those who grew up post war but pre-EEC membership. And changing people's mental maps is damn difficult.)
It isn't that much, most of even under 40s would be fine with EFTA membership at most, they don't have a desperate desire to be part of the Eurozone and an EU superstate which is where the EU is heading.
Over 65 upper middle class LD voters are much keener on rejoining the full EU than most under 40s would be if EFTA was an option too (and plenty of the former on PB)
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
See Figure 1. As usual, when you look at the actual figures, there is no evidence that Brexit has made either a positive or negative effect on UK attractiveness. The trends, with some flattening during Covid, continue as before.
Business investment of G7 countries relative to 2016. Which what you would expect given the UK has suddenly limited its market and increased the risk of doing business here. Investment is competitive. You place it where you get the best expected returns.
Business investment was already poor but Brexit has definitely made it worse.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe
That's what used to be said, before Gallipoli, Tobruk and Singapore.
Just ask the Australians.
Yes they voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999 and Australia remains the main emigration destination for Brits.
So the ties that bound us together to defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WW2 remain
"ties that bound us together".Much weakened in WW2 by British incompetence. Australia is a far more American place in many ways now.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe.
We even share the same King and language and common law and Westminster style democracy heritage and watch many of the same TV programmes
So what?
Who's this "we"? As a Scot I certainly don't share the same legal system.
I agree that the UK and NZ (and Scotland and Australia) are all culturally quite similar but the Brexit loons are up to their usual tricks of thereby trying to imply that it must therefore be a stretch to conclude a trading arrangement with countries like Slovenia.
In reality, Brits have been trading with the Continent for millennia. Look at the Bordeaux wine trade.
The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.
Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.
Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.
Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.
Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.
The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
We could have what almost every other English speaking Common Law Parliamentary democracy in the world has, which is a domestic Supreme Court. Its good enough for Australia and Canada and New Zealand. There's nothing special about simply by an accident of geography happening to be in Europe which means we need to be in the ECHR in my view.
I'm ambivalent as to whether we stay or go, either are legitimate choices. Out of sheer inertia I'd probably say we should stay in it, but there's no philosophical reason why its better than a domestic Supreme Court.
The thing is it is not just the Court. It is the Convention as well. You cannot be a signatory to the Convention without accepting the jurisdiction of the court.
Which is why when people say it was created by Churchill it is false. What Churchill designed was a Convention that was signed multinationally but enforced domestically. There was no international overriding of Parliament in Churchill's day, the Court came later.
No reason why we couldn't revert IMHO to a modernised version of what Churchill had, which would be an equivalent Convention enforced in the UK Supreme Court.
I don't particularly think we should leave the Convention, but if we were to do so I wouldn't object either, so long as we had a domestic alternative put in its place. I'm agnostic over it.
That is simply not true. The Convention that Churchill designed with Mitterand and Adenauer and subsequently signed explicitly included the Court to oversee and adjudicate. The fact that it took a further 6 years to actually come into existence does not mean it was not part of the convention from the start nor that Churchill did not approve of it. It was a Briton, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who devised the convention and Churchill signed the declaration bringing it into existence at the end of the 1948 Congress that created both the Convention and the Court.
"We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought, assembly and expression as well as right to form a political opposition. We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter."
I stand corrected, I was wrong.
Still, no reason why IMHO we need an international Court on Justice instead of a domestic Supreme Court like other Parliamentary Common Law democracies.
As far as the ECtHR is concerned, it has failed to stand up to countries (like Russia) that remain signatories but disregard human rights.
Perhaps because the other Democracies you allude to have never sought to bind their neighbours to their own vision of democracy and law through a voluntary convention. We chose to devise a system to ensure that our neighbours adhered to a set of standards that we wished to promote. It seems perverse for us to now disown those standards and that system for petty party political advantage - which is all this is really about.
We chose to bind all sorts of other countries in the past to our visions, its imperialistic and we've largely turned our back on that.
We also have a domestic principle that no Parliament can bind its successors, so if any Parliament votes to change the decisions of the past, that is entirely democratic.
I don't find it at all perverse to disown standards if those standards no long suit our interests or the modern world. Our closest friends and allies that share our principles of Parliamentary democracy aren't even a part of the ECHR anyway, so there's no real reason other than basic inertia why we have to be.
They are our standards. They are the standards we still claim to hold to in our laws and society. Go and look at the Convention and find anything there which is not fundamentally part of what our country is supposed to stand for.
The only reason we are even having this debate is because the current political leadership of one party has decided that those basic standards are no longer politically expedient. Which is one reason why they will shortly no longer be in a position to do anything about it.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe
That's what used to be said, before Gallipoli, Tobruk and Singapore.
Just ask the Australians.
Yes they voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999 and Australia remains the main emigration destination for Brits.
So the ties that bound us together to defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WW2 remain
And lots of UK people emigrate to Spain and Thailand, but I don't see you proclaiming the ties that bind the UK to them.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe.
We even share the same King and language and common law and Westminster style democracy heritage and watch many of the same TV programmes
So what?
Who's this "we"? As a Scot I certainly don't share the same legal system.
I agree that the UK and NZ (and Scotland and Australia) are all culturally quite similar but the Brexit loons are up to their usual tricks of thereby trying to imply that it must therefore be a stretch to conclude a trading arrangement with countries like Slovenia.
In reality, Brits have been trading with the Continent for millennia. Look at the Bordeaux wine trade.
The Scottish merchants in the Baltic ports. And so on.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Hahahaha. You just keep believing that if it makes you feel better. You and I and everyone else on this board will be long dead before we renew ties with the EU.
Quite likely in your case as you are corpulent and prone to apoplexy. The rest of can be more hopeful perhaps.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Odd. Brits think they have far more in common with Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians than they do with the French, Czechs and Slovenians and they vote with their feet accordingly.
The British position has been the same for centuries: we are a maritime trading nation that trades both globally and continentally and has a strong interest in a maintaining a balance of power in Europe and secure global sea routes in order to prosper.
Geography is key but not all in one direction like you think it is.
And yet, despite all of that (which isn't false but I do think it is more complicated than that), Brexit is unpopular and increasingly so.
It's really not my job to work out why, or what to do about that. Which is probably for the best, because I haven't got a clue where to begin.
(I suspect the answer is that there's nothing to be done about it. The mental map for those who grew up after about 1973 is just different to that of those who grew up post war but pre-EEC membership. And changing people's mental maps is damn difficult.)
It isn't that much, most of even under 40s would be fine with EFTA membership at most, they don't have a desperate desire to be part of the Eurozone and an EU superstate which is where the EU is heading.
Over 65 upper middle class LD voters are much keener on rejoining the full EU than most under 40s would be if EFTA was an option too (and plenty of the former on PB)
You’ve never even spoken to someone under 40, so how would you know?
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe
That's what used to be said, before Gallipoli, Tobruk and Singapore.
Just ask the Australians.
Yes they voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999 and Australia remains the main emigration destination for Brits.
So the ties that bound us together to defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WW2 remain
And lots of UK people emigrate to Spain and Thailand, but I don't see you proclaiming the ties that bind the UK to them.
Fewer UK people emigrate to Spain than Australia, despite Spain being far closer.
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
See Figure 1. As usual, when you look at the actual figures, there is no evidence that Brexit has made either a positive or negative effect on UK attractiveness. The trends, with some flattening during Covid, continue as before.
Business investment of G7 countries relative to 2016. Which what you would expect given the UK has suddenly limited its market and increased the risk of doing business here. Investment is competitive. You place it where you get the best expected returns.
Business investment was already poor but Brexit has definitely made it worse.
I should add I don't think ALL of these utterly dire investment figures for the UK are down to Brexit. The negligent Brexiteer Conservative government should share some of the blame.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Odd. Brits think they have far more in common with Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians than they do with the French, Czechs and Slovenians and they vote with their feet accordingly.
The British position has been the same for centuries: we are a maritime trading nation that trades both globally and continentally and has a strong interest in a maintaining a balance of power in Europe and secure global sea routes in order to prosper.
Geography is key but not all in one direction like you think it is.
And yet, despite all of that (which isn't false but I do think it is more complicated than that), Brexit is unpopular and increasingly so.
It's really not my job to work out why, or what to do about that. Which is probably for the best, because I haven't got a clue where to begin.
(I suspect the answer is that there's nothing to be done about it. The mental map for those who grew up after about 1973 is just different to that of those who grew up post war but pre-EEC membership. And changing people's mental maps is damn difficult.)
It isn't that much, most of even under 40s would be fine with EFTA membership at most, they don't have a desperate desire to be part of the Eurozone and an EU superstate which is where the EU is heading.
Over 65 upper middle class LD voters are much keener on rejoining the full EU than most under 40s would be if EFTA was an option too (and plenty of the former on PB)
You’ve never even spoken to someone under 40, so how would you know?
Basically, Ukraine is now throwing most of its available resources into the attack. Russia is also fully committed with almost no mobile reserves according to the UK MoD. We are getting close to crunch time for one side or the other.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe
That's what used to be said, before Gallipoli, Tobruk and Singapore.
Just ask the Australians.
Yes they voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999 and Australia remains the main emigration destination for Brits.
So the ties that bound us together to defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WW2 remain
And lots of UK people emigrate to Spain and Thailand, but I don't see you proclaiming the ties that bind the UK to them.
Fewer UK people emigrate to Spain than Australia, despite Spain being far closer.
That's because UK schools are crap at modern languages.
We all know that the boat people come to the UK for the English culture and languahe. So why don't you apply the same argument to the boat people's source countries? I can't *possibly* think why not.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Odd. Brits think they have far more in common with Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians than they do with the French, Czechs and Slovenians and they vote with their feet accordingly.
The British position has been the same for centuries: we are a maritime trading nation that trades both globally and continentally and has a strong interest in a maintaining a balance of power in Europe and secure global sea routes in order to prosper.
Geography is key but not all in one direction like you think it is.
And yet, despite all of that (which isn't false but I do think it is more complicated than that), Brexit is unpopular and increasingly so.
It's really not my job to work out why, or what to do about that. Which is probably for the best, because I haven't got a clue where to begin.
(I suspect the answer is that there's nothing to be done about it. The mental map for those who grew up after about 1973 is just different to that of those who grew up post war but pre-EEC membership. And changing people's mental maps is damn difficult.)
It isn't that much, most of even under 40s would be fine with EFTA membership at most, they don't have a desperate desire to be part of the Eurozone and an EU superstate which is where the EU is heading.
Over 65 upper middle class LD voters are much keener on rejoining the full EU than most under 40s would be if EFTA was an option too (and plenty of the former on PB)
You’ve never even spoken to someone under 40, so how would you know?
I am only 41 myself!
Jesus Christ, you kept that well hid. I assumed you were in your dessicated mid-50s.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe
That's what used to be said, before Gallipoli, Tobruk and Singapore.
Just ask the Australians.
Yes they voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999 and Australia remains the main emigration destination for Brits.
So the ties that bound us together to defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WW2 remain
"ties that bound us together".Much weakened in WW2 by British incompetence. Australia is a far more American place in many ways now.
Australia and certainly New Zealand are closer to the UK and Canada than USA or Asia culturally.
The UK is also culturally closer to Australia, New Zealand and Canada than the USA or continental Europe
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Like the Windsor Accords?
No. That is generally understood as an expedient fix to a glaring oversight.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
See Figure 1. As usual, when you look at the actual figures, there is no evidence that Brexit has made either a positive or negative effect on UK attractiveness. The trends, with some flattening during Covid, continue as before.
Business investment of G7 countries relative to 2016. Which what you would expect given the UK has suddenly limited its market and increased the risk of doing business here. Investment is competitive. You place it where you get the best expected returns.
Business investment was already poor but Brexit has definitely made it worse.
I should add I don't think ALL of these utterly dire investment figures for the UK are down to Brexit. The negligent Brexiteer Conservative government should share some of the blame.
And how did they get into power? Bewcause of you know what.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
Odd. Brits think they have far more in common with Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians than they do with the French, Czechs and Slovenians and they vote with their feet accordingly.
The British position has been the same for centuries: we are a maritime trading nation that trades both globally and continentally and has a strong interest in a maintaining a balance of power in Europe and secure global sea routes in order to prosper.
Geography is key but not all in one direction like you think it is.
And yet, despite all of that (which isn't false but I do think it is more complicated than that), Brexit is unpopular and increasingly so.
It's really not my job to work out why, or what to do about that. Which is probably for the best, because I haven't got a clue where to begin.
(I suspect the answer is that there's nothing to be done about it. The mental map for those who grew up after about 1973 is just different to that of those who grew up post war but pre-EEC membership. And changing people's mental maps is damn difficult.)
It isn't that much, most of even under 40s would be fine with EFTA membership at most, they don't have a desperate desire to be part of the Eurozone and an EU superstate which is where the EU is heading.
Over 65 upper middle class LD voters are much keener on rejoining the full EU than most under 40s would be if EFTA was an option too (and plenty of the former on PB)
But even that- some variant of what Norway or Switzerland do- is a much closer arrangement than we have right now. In an annexe with a separate front door, but still in the same building. Which is not what eurosceptics are talking about this evening.
One final thought before I wander off to water the corguettes. (Half of me wants them to die so I don't have to keep harvesting them, but that wouldn't be on.) Some of the chat this evening has been about how the UK can't be fully European, because of the Anglosphere. Spaniards don't bang on about the Hispanidad in the same way, or France about the Francophonie. They just get on with having multiple overlapping identities. Why do Brits find that so difficult?
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe
That's what used to be said, before Gallipoli, Tobruk and Singapore.
Just ask the Australians.
Yes they voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999 and Australia remains the main emigration destination for Brits.
So the ties that bound us together to defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WW2 remain
"ties that bound us together".Much weakened in WW2 by British incompetence. Australia is a far more American place in many ways now.
Australia and certainly New Zealand are closer to the UK and Canada than USA or Asia culturally.
The UK is also culturally closer to Australia, New Zealand and Canada than the USA or continental Europe
Not true. The UK is closest by far to the EU, in the form of Ireland. Some of the UK *is* Ireland.
Basically, Ukraine is now throwing most of its available resources into the attack. Russia is also fully committed with almost no mobile reserves according to the UK MoD. We are getting close to crunch time for one side or the other.
Very good. Praying for a Ukrainian breakthrough that will cut off Russian supply to Crimea and shut the prevaricating noises off from some Western sources.
Brexit is dead. We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Brexit is done.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
As a philosophy it’s dead. The majority now see what we’ve lost and want to get most of it back. A journey that will end up with us becoming politically what we always have been cultural and geographically - European - rather than this insane nostalgia for a brief period of attachment to countries literally on the other side of the globe we have nothing in common with.
We are as European as Canadians are American.
And you should know full well the UK has much in common with New Zealand and other nations, the idea we have nothing in common with New Zealand is just preposterous.
Canadians are, literally, American, yes. As for Aotearoa, we play a certain number of sports in common and speak English. That is it. We don't even have the same legal system anymore given they've largely abandoned common law. Aotearoa is a Polynesian culture. We are a European one. We are nothing but a rebellious province of a European whole. We have culturally far more in common with the rest of Europe than Aotearoa or Australia and we have been part of unions with European nations far longer than our brief dalliance with them.
No we have culturally much more in common with Australia and New Zealand than continental Europe
That's what used to be said, before Gallipoli, Tobruk and Singapore.
Just ask the Australians.
Yes they voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999 and Australia remains the main emigration destination for Brits.
So the ties that bound us together to defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WW2 remain
And lots of UK people emigrate to Spain and Thailand, but I don't see you proclaiming the ties that bind the UK to them.
Fewer UK people emigrate to Spain than Australia, despite Spain being far closer.
That's because UK schools are crap at modern languages.
We all know that the boat people come to the UK for the English culture and languahe. So why don't you apply the same argument to the boat people's source countries? I can't *possibly* think why not.
Even I support making foreign languages compulsory to 16, however speaking foreign languages better still means they are foreign languages rather than your native English.
Boat people leave for developed high income nations, that doesn't mean their countries of origin are culturally similar. Economically we are far closer to Australia, NZ and Canada than Africa is to us
Comments
We also have a domestic principle that no Parliament can bind its successors, so if any Parliament votes to change the decisions of the past, that is entirely democratic.
I don't find it at all perverse to disown standards if those standards no long suit our interests or the modern world. Our closest friends and allies that share our principles of Parliamentary democracy aren't even a part of the ECHR anyway, so there's no real reason other than basic inertia why we have to be.
Or perhaps John Dodd’s famous Merlin-engined custom from the 1970s. https://www.classicdriver.com/en/article/cars/john-dodd-and-merlin-engined-monstrosity-infuriated-rolls-royce
Man who killed California store owner tore down Pride flag and shouted slurs
Shooter had history of posting hateful content online, sheriff says, and shot Laura Ann Carleton with gun not registered to him
A 27-year-old man who fatally shot a store owner in California had torn down her Pride flag and shouted homophobic slurs, officials said on Monday.
Laura Ann Carleton, 66, who went by “Lauri”, died at the scene of the shooting on Friday outside her Mag.Pi clothing store in Cedar Glen, an unincorporated community in the mountains roughly 60 miles (100km) east of Los Angeles.
San Bernardino’s county sheriff, Shannon Dicus, identified the shooter as Travis Ikeguchi in a Monday press conference. Ikeguchi fled on foot, and when he was confronted by officers, he opened fire on them and hit multiple squad cars, Dicus said. Sheriff’s deputies fired back and fatally shot Ikeguchi a mile from the store.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/22/man-shot-california-store-owner-tore-down-pride-flag-shouted-slurs
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
What's good enough for Belfast should be available to Bangor, Birmingham, and Banff.
It’s possible NZFirst (NZ’s answer to UKIP) might return to parliament, they are polling just shy of the 5% threshold.
If they do, then National/Act are reduced to a majority of 1 under the latest poll, and they would typically need to nominate a Speaker beside.
Having said that, Labour look screwed.
There’s a lesson in here for Keir somewhere.
Labour/Ardern came to power with great hopes, but their governance has been inept and beholden to incredibly sloppy, left-wing dogma.
The country is in a kind of cultural impasse and although National/Act don’t look to be offering much there might be a return of some kind of grip.
Plus the rejoin vote would split between Labour and the LDs while the keep Brexit vote would largely stick with the Conservatives
We just haven’t figured out how to dispose of the body yet.
For the moment, we have to put up with this grotesque “Weekend at Bernie’s” style politics where people pretend it makes any sense whatsoever.
Being a part of history now, it is neither living nor dead, its simply a part of the past.
Business has no confidence in the current government, as is clear from business surveys and foreign investment levels.
And if foreign investment levels is the metric then not only is the UK growing faster than Germany, but the UK also received more FDI than Germany last year. Despite the fact they're a more populous nation.
Maybe they need to Brexit (Dexit?) too to catch up with us?
A total lost cause supporting this bunch.
I’d argue that Canadians are far more “American” than Brits are “European”.
Ditto we too are are British/English depending upon your perspective not European as in the EU.
Europe is our continent, not our nationality. Like Canada/USA.
Thus leaving the ideological space free for something that looks interesting and viable from the Conservatives in, say, 2029.
Although there is definitely a strain of libertarian resistance to Covid-era policy in NZ opinion, the main objection to Jacinda was that she was just not competent at governance.
All the major public services began declining almost immediately, and well before Covid. Post Covid, of course, they are now in steep decline.
Despite significant increase in public sector employment and government spending.
Jacinda/Labour were/are also beholden to a “Māori co-governance” agenda, which has led them to some quite anti-democratic policy. Stuff that PBers would go absolutely mental over.
I’m not even sure you believe this stuff yourself.
If a seat was sat 65% leave last time then based on the polling shift since it’s now about 53% leave (at best) now, and not that many seats were that Brexity.
There were points - as I recall, and I might have misremembered the details - where the quarantine rules for being caught near someone with covid were longer, by a chalk, than actually HAVING Covid.
See Figure 1. As usual, when you look at the actual figures, there is no evidence that Brexit has made either a positive or negative effect on UK attractiveness. The trends, with some flattening during Covid, continue as before.
I suspect it is, although I am not following the Australian debate.
NZ will surely be a cautionary tale.
There may be the opportunity to win back a few votes from Reform over the issue; the problem is that too many of that group think that Rishi is an EU sellout for... for... for something or another. Maybe leaving the EHCR tickles their erogenous zones.
As always your myopia on this subject is positively Freudian.
I know mine: it's carrying your mail
You're spot on about the standard we should expect here
I do miss Leon's erudition
The British position has been the same for centuries: we are a maritime trading nation that trades both globally and continentally and has a strong interest in a maintaining a balance of power in Europe and secure global sea routes in order to prosper.
Geography is key but not all in one direction like you think it is.
We even share the same King and language and common law and Westminster style democracy heritage and watch many of the same TV programmes
Your position would make much more sense if the "British"
(a) still had a mercantile marine
(b) had a government which worried about the balance of payments
(c) ditto industry
(d) ditto energy security
(e) didn't sell off the UK's capital to outsiders
(f) didn't run down the armed forces
Even if one disagrees with everything he writes, it's hard not to be at least a little impressed by the way he writes it
Just ask the Australians.
It happened because a huge constituency of eurosceptic opinion in this country was ignored for far too long, by both the UK and the EU, with stultifying level of pomposity, arrogance and self-servedness that patronised them to boot.
Less than a kilo of flour.
Fewer than 30 melons.
Edit: or indeed fewer dogs.
It's really not my job to work out why, or what to do about that. Which is probably for the best, because I haven't got a clue where to begin.
(I suspect the answer is that there's nothing to be done about it. The mental map for those who grew up after about 1973 is just different to that of those who grew up post war but pre-EEC membership. And changing people's mental maps is damn difficult.)
I want fewer examples of less correct grammar
So the ties that bound us together to defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WW2 remain
Over 65 upper middle class LD voters are much keener on rejoining the full EU than most under 40s would be if EFTA was an option too (and plenty of the former on PB)
Business investment was already poor but Brexit has definitely made it worse.
https://www.economicsobservatory.com/how-has-brexit-affected-business-investment-in-the-uk
You can ask for a smaller amount of sugar, but you really shouldn't say "a smaller amount of people"
That definitely should be "a smaller number of people"
In reality, Brits have been trading with the Continent for millennia. Look at the Bordeaux wine trade.
The only reason we are even having this debate is because the current political leadership of one party has decided that those basic standards are no longer politically expedient. Which is one reason why they will shortly no longer be in a position to do anything about it.
Thailand is not even in the top 10 UK emigration destinations unlike Australia at no 1, Canada at no 3 and New Zealand at no 6.
https://www.movehub.com/blog/top-10-countries-brits-choose/
Basically, Ukraine is now throwing most of its available resources into the attack. Russia is also fully committed with almost no mobile reserves according to the UK MoD. We are getting close to crunch time for one side or the other.
We all know that the boat people come to the UK for the English culture and languahe. So why don't you apply the same argument to the boat people's source countries? I can't *possibly* think why not.
I assumed you were in your dessicated mid-50s.
The UK is also culturally closer to Australia, New Zealand and Canada than the USA or continental Europe
One final thought before I wander off to water the corguettes. (Half of me wants them to die so I don't have to keep harvesting them, but that wouldn't be on.) Some of the chat this evening has been about how the UK can't be fully European, because of the Anglosphere. Spaniards don't bang on about the Hispanidad in the same way, or France about the Francophonie. They just get on with having multiple overlapping identities. Why do Brits find that so difficult?
Boat people leave for developed high income nations, that doesn't mean their countries of origin are culturally similar. Economically we are far closer to Australia, NZ and Canada than Africa is to us