Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"

If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers

That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there

What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.

Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed

You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy

123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.

Lol. Ok

Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?

Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"

If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers

That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there

What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.

Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed

You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy

123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.

Lol. Ok

Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?

Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"

If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers

That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there

What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.

Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed

You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy

123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.

Lol. Ok

Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?

Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?

Because it’s funny and winds you up

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Test

Did you fail or pass?

Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.

On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?

I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average.
We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.

Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.

And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.

The UK is out, 100% out.

As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.

We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.

r
"We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.

Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.

Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.

I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.

"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.

Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.

No, it doesn't.

I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.

Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.

No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.

We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.

"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.

More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.

That's not a problem, because its not true.

We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".

The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.

As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.

We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.

Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as
Freemen on the Land types

What a load of codswallop.

England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.

Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.

The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.

Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.

When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.

Gardenwalker said:

The new Chinese map attempts to take bits from Russia, Japan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bhutan and Vietnam.

Xi is an absolute clown.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"

If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers

That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there

What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.

Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed

You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy

123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.

Lol. Ok

Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?

Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?

Doug, you've hit rock bottom, Leon is accusing you of a flailing ad hominem,

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

I believe the aforementioned military maps have also annoyed India in respect of Ladakh and some of the areas up in the Himalayas which were fought over in 1962 and where tensions occasionally run high. I didn't realise India's border with China (albeit in sections) was almost as long as Russia's.

I do wonder if a future Russian leader with more political nous than Putin will see the benefit of reviving the old alliance with India - this was counterbalanced by Chinese support for Pakistan.

Perhaps the long-held assumption the 21st century would be the "Asian Century" are wrong inasmuch as the assumptions were based on the rise of China - perhaps more accurate may be the rise of India as a global economic power perhaps emerging as a rival to China across Asia, Africa and elsewhere.

The 3 major economic powers of the 21st century will be China, the US and India in terms of overall gdp. Russia likely won't be in the top 10 economically

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Amusing thing I learnt today. Since the London Eye gained popularity when it opened for the Millennium as then the world's largest ferris wheel, and sparked a global revival of the popularity of ferris wheels, different countries have followed in creating their own and having a game of one-upmanship to claim the record of the largest.

Spot the odd one out:

1999/2000 - UK - 135m
2006 - China - 160m
2008 - Singapore - 167m
2021 - United Arab Emirates - 250m
2022 - Russia - 140m

Successive nations have known the sizes of their predecessors and tried to pip out the largest to gain the record, Singapore only narrowly doing so but doing so nonetheless. UAE smashing it.

Russia only sought to beat us.

What is it with Russia and the UK?

Russia is jealous because Britain invented communism, with Marx and Engels based here.

Eabhal said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"

If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers

That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there

What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.

Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed

You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy

123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.

Lol. Ok

Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?

Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?

It would be interesting to know where it is being watched. Is this having as big as an influence on Americans, or is the effect spread out across English speaking nations? Is your typical twitter user more or less likely to vote in the US election than a TV news viewer?

I'm not suggesting the numbers aren't impressive; just that the political impact might be fairly small.

Incidentally, what is Fox News' position on Ukraine?

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Test

Did you fail or pass?

Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.

On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?

I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average.
We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.

Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.

And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.

The UK is out, 100% out.

As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.

We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.

r
"We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.

Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.

Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.

I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.

"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.

Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.

No, it doesn't.

I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.

Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.

No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.

We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.

"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.

More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.

That's not a problem, because its not true.

We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".

The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.

As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.

We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.

Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as
Freemen on the Land types

What a load of codswallop.

England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.

Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.

The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.

Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.

Gardenwalker said:

The new Chinese map attempts to take bits from Russia, Japan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bhutan and Vietnam.

Xi is an absolute clown.

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"

If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers

That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there

What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.

Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed

You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"

If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers

That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there

What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.

Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed

You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy

123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.

Lol. Ok

Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?

Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?

Because it’s funny and winds you up

Well I’m afraid to say it’s failing. I’m standing here on a sublime late summer evening, and feeling the opposite of “wound up”



London looking good from Primrose Hill

The British Montmartre. Or would Hampstead be a better fit?

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

There are some quite prominent rumours on Twitter that Tucker Carlson is going to interview Putin

THAT would be a pretty profound moment in media. If he got 125m “views” on Twitter for Orban, what would he get for Putin?

We could be looking at the emergence of the alt right Parky.

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Test

Did you fail or pass?

Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.

On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?

I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average.
We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.

Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.

And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.

The UK is out, 100% out.

As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.

We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.

r
"We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.

Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.

Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.

I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.

"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.

Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.

No, it doesn't.

I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.

Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.

No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.

We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.

"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.

More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.

That's not a problem, because its not true.

We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".

The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.

As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.

We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.

Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as
Freemen on the Land types

What a load of codswallop.

England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.

Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.

The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.

Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.

The idea we weren't sovereign pre-Brexit is also absurd.

Dont be daft....its like saying while you are in a marriage...I am actually still single because I can get a divorce

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Test

Did you fail or pass?

Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.

On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?

I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average.
We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.

Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.

And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.

The UK is out, 100% out.

As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.

We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.

r
"We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.

Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.

Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.

I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.

"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.

Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.

No, it doesn't.

I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.

Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.

No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.

We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.

"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.

More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.

That's not a problem, because its not true.

We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".

The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.

As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.

We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.

Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as
Freemen on the Land types

What a load of codswallop.

England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.

Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.

The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.

Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.

When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Test

Did you fail or pass?

Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.

On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?

I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average.
We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.

Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.

And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.

The UK is out, 100% out.

As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.

We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.

r
"We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.

Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.

Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.

I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.

"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.

Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.

No, it doesn't.

I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.

Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.

No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.

We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.

"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.

More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.

That's not a problem, because its not true.

We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".

The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.

As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.

We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.

Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as
Freemen on the Land types

What a load of codswallop.

England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.

Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.

The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.

Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.

The idea we weren't sovereign pre-Brexit is also absurd.

Dont be daft....its like saying while you are in a marriage...I am actually still single because I can get a divorce

The EU is a voluntary organisation of sovereign states. Armed with this mundane fact we have no need for comparisons to one's marital status.

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"

If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers

That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there

What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.

Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed

You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy

123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.

Lol. Ok

Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?

Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?

Sean_F said:

Mexicanpete said:

Sean_F said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

Mexicanpete said:

Have we done this yet?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/02/millions-of-missing-voters-cost-labour-seats-due-to-electoral-boundaries-bias

Rishi Trump for President!

Misleading title, because if you read the article it isn't talking about voters, it's talking about population, which is not the same thing.

Have you not understood the thrust of the piece?

Cameron and Osborne gerrymandered, yes gerrymandered, constituencies in their favour by basing seat boundaries on registered voters not eligible voters, the upshot is rather a significant perceived unfair benefit for the Tories at General Elections. The article is clear why it was done, and the names supporting the notion are not unserious people.

I know any significant unfair advantage to ensure a Tory win floats your boat, but you can't disregard the article just because you don't like the conclusion.

Basing constituency sizes upon registered voters is not aome evil innovation on the part of the Conservatives, but rather, how it has been done since universal suffrage became a thing. Equal representation was among the demands of the Chartists.

You clearly haven't read the article.

Perhaps we've read different articles. I've read the article, and Kellner's.

This has been the system since 1948. Guess who was in power then.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Verulamius said:

I have just read https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/01/america-life-expectancy-regions-00113369

It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.

The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).

I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?

Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.

Casino_Royale said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Test

Did you fail or pass?

Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.

On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?

I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average.
We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.

Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.

And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.

The UK is out, 100% out.

As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.

We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.

r
"We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.

Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.

Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.

I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.

"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.

Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.

No, it doesn't.

I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.

Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.

No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.

We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.

"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.

More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.

That's not a problem, because its not true.

We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".

The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.

As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.

We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.

Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as
Freemen on the Land types

What a load of codswallop.

England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.

Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.

The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.

Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.

When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.

You seem to be genuinely barking, sniff at any sense of British nationhood and sovereignty, and actually believe we've deserted a United States of Europe that you sincerely cherish.

People like you explain precisely why the Leave vote was so high, and not a fringe affair.

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Test

Did you fail or pass?

Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.

On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?

I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average.
We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.

Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.

And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.

The UK is out, 100% out.

As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.

We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.

r
"We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.

Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.

Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.

I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.

"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.

Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.

No, it doesn't.

I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.

Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.

No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.

We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.

"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.

More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.

That's not a problem, because its not true.

We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".

The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.

As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.

We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.

Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as
Freemen on the Land types

What a load of codswallop.

England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.

Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.

The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.

Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.

When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.

You seem to be genuinely barking, sniff at any sense of British nationhood and sovereignty, and actually believe we've deserted a United States of Europe that you sincerely cherish.

People like you explain precisely why the Leave vote was so high, and not a fringe affair.

He’s trolling you, and you’re falling for it hook line and sinker.

Gardenwalker said:

The new Chinese map attempts to take bits from Russia, Japan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bhutan and Vietnam.

Xi is an absolute clown.

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"

If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers

That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there

What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.

Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed

You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy

123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.

Lol. Ok

Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?

Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?

To be fair, I thought it was shit.

Carlson was just delighted to find someone who'd like to suck Putin's **** harder than he would, and spent over 20 minutes fawning over him.

The only good bit was that it was at least an interview that was a real conversation, free of platitudes and soundbites, and basically respectful with no-one interrupting each other.

Eabhal said:

Incidentally, the Scotland's

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Verulamius said:

I have just read https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/01/america-life-expectancy-regions-00113369

It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.

The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).

I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?

Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.

It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.

I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.

Pagan2 said:

Eabhal said:

Incidentally, the Scotland's

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Verulamius said:

I have just read https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/01/america-life-expectancy-regions-00113369

It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.

The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).

I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?

Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.

It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.

I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.

So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Test

Did you fail or pass?

Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.

On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?

I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average.
We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.

Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.

And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.

The UK is out, 100% out.

As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.

We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.

r
"We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.

Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.

Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.

I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.

"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.

Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.

No, it doesn't.

I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.

Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.

No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.

We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.

"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.

More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.

That's not a problem, because its not true.

We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".

The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.

As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.

We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.

Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as
Freemen on the Land types

What a load of codswallop.

England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.

Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.

The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.

Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.

When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.

You seem to be genuinely barking, sniff at any sense of British nationhood and sovereignty, and actually believe we've deserted a United States of Europe that you sincerely cherish.

People like you explain precisely why the Leave vote was so high, and not a fringe affair.

He’s trolling you, and you’re falling for it hook line and sinker.

I think he means it.

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

Re the upcoming fine weather


When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun

Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)

Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"

A strange glitch

There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.

It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.

Yes. Also good weather in September feels like a pleasing bonus. Whereas good weather in
July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)

Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter

But also the slight melancholy that goes with the urgency. There is only a finite amount of summer left (the sun is already below the treetops in suburban Romford). It is enjoyable, but we must enjoy it while it lasts.

Oh for sure. But I feel that about life in general these days

Leon said:

TimS said:

Okay, PB travel quiz time. Where am I?

I think I know exactly where you are, because i was there - if it is the same in 2016; here’s my photo for comparison


Bagnols

TimS said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

Re the upcoming fine weather


When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun

Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)

Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"

A strange glitch

There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.

It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.

Yes. Also good weather in September feels like a pleasing bonus. Whereas good weather in
July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)

Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter

But also the slight melancholy that goes with the urgency. There is only a finite amount of summer left (the sun is already below the treetops in suburban Romford). It is enjoyable, but we must enjoy it while it lasts.

Oh for sure. But I feel that about life in general these days

A feeling best dealt with by travelling the world, staying in fancy hotels like the one I’m in currently, and getting paid for it (like I’m sadly not).

TimS said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

Re the upcoming fine weather


When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun

Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)

Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"

A strange glitch

There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.

It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.

Yes. Also good weather in September feels like a pleasing bonus. Whereas good weather in
July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)

Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter

But also the slight melancholy that goes with the urgency. There is only a finite amount of summer left (the sun is already below the treetops in suburban Romford). It is enjoyable, but we must enjoy it while it lasts.

Oh for sure. But I feel that about life in general these days

A feeling best dealt with by travelling the world, staying in fancy hotels like the one I’m in currently, and getting paid for it (like I’m sadly not).

Pagan2 said:

Pagan2 said:

Eabhal said:

Incidentally, the Scotland's

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Verulamius said:

I have just read https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/01/america-life-expectancy-regions-00113369

It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.

The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).

I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?

Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.

It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.

I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.

So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian

I actually agree with you personal responsibility is a thing, however anytime people suggest it people like you complain. Unemployed....maybe you should move somewhere cheaper to live so you arent such a burden on the public purse...oh no support networks, living in a house larger that you need and claiming housing benefit....oh no bedroom tax....got dementia and need to be in a home....oh no dementia tax.

Perhaps when people like you stop attacking things where people like me are suggesting people should take responsibility I will take people like you seriously

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

Pagan2 said:

Eabhal said:

Incidentally, the Scotland's

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Verulamius said:

I have just read https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/01/america-life-expectancy-regions-00113369

It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.

The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).

I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?

Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.

It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.

I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.

So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian

I actually agree with you personal responsibility is a thing, however anytime people suggest it people like you complain. Unemployed....maybe you should move somewhere cheaper to live so you arent such a burden on the public purse...oh no support networks, living in a house larger that you need and claiming housing benefit....oh no bedroom tax....got dementia and need to be in a home....oh no dementia tax.

Perhaps when people like you stop attacking things where people like me are suggesting people should take responsibility I will take people like you seriously

People like me? Who?

FYI I thought May's "dementia tax" was the kind of balls we need from our politicians and have been pissed with Corbyn ever since for his opposition to it.

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

Re the upcoming fine weather


When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun

Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)

Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"

A strange glitch

There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.

It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.

Yes. Also good weather in September feels like a pleasing bonus. Whereas good weather in
July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)

Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter

But also the slight melancholy that goes with the urgency. There is only a finite amount of summer left (the sun is already below the treetops in suburban Romford). It is enjoyable, but we must enjoy it while it lasts.

Oh for sure. But I feel that about life in general these days

A feeling best dealt with by travelling the world, staying in fancy hotels like the one I’m in currently, and getting paid for it (like I’m sadly not).

I’ve stayed in that hotel. For me it was free and I was indeed paid to stay there. Sorry

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

The new Chinese map attempts to take bits from Russia, Japan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bhutan and Vietnam.

Xi is an absolute clown.

It's also unwise.

China is not omnipotent and he doesn't (or shouldn't) want all those countries to implicitly ally with the US against him, because they'd outgun him economically and politically, even with China's size.

That’s my point though.
China is NOT hyper-puissant and on some level needs the cooperation of neighbours.

But Xi is just pissing them all off instead.

DougSeal said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MikeSmithson said:

Test

Did you fail or pass?

Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.

On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?

I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average.
We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.

Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.

And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.

The UK is out, 100% out.

As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.

We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.

r
"We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.

Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.

Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.

I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.

"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.

Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.

No, it doesn't.

I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.

Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.

No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.

We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.

"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.

More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.

That's not a problem, because its not true.

We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".

The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.

As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.

We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.

Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as
Freemen on the Land types

What a load of codswallop.

England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.

Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.

The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.

Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.

When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.

You seem to be genuinely barking, sniff at any sense of British nationhood and sovereignty, and actually believe we've deserted a United States of Europe that you sincerely cherish.

People like you explain precisely why the Leave vote was so high, and not a fringe affair.

He’s trolling you, and you’re falling for it hook line and sinker.

I think he means it.

No, I’m trolling you, because taking the piss out of right wing loons like you who have a heart attack whenever anyone challenges their comfortable, boring, white y-front, white bread, white everything view of the world is incredibly satisfying. And easy. You fall for it every time. Like most Tories you have no sense of humour, irony, or decency.

I don’t think Britishness exists though. You’re right about that. We’re a rag tag collection of ethnicities and nationalities coming apart at the seams.

Sean_F said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

Mexicanpete said:

Have we done this yet?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/02/millions-of-missing-voters-cost-labour-seats-due-to-electoral-boundaries-bias

Rishi Trump for President!

Misleading title, because if you read the article it isn't talking about voters, it's talking about population, which is not the same thing.

Have you not understood the thrust of the piece?

Cameron and Osborne gerrymandered, yes gerrymandered, constituencies in their favour by basing seat boundaries on registered voters not eligible voters, the upshot is rather a significant perceived unfair benefit for the Tories at General Elections. The article is clear why it was done, and the names supporting the notion are not unserious people.

I know any significant unfair advantage to ensure a Tory win floats your boat, but you can't disregard the article just because you don't like the conclusion.

I thought basing seats on registered voters long predated Cameron. Indeed it is mentioned as already being in existence in the Political Parties, Elections and. Referendums Act (PPERA) 2000 passed by Blair.

It did. It was brought in by Attlee's government.