Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Rather good match! I think both sides were odds of 10/1 at some point during that! I'm in the big sandpit this weekend where actually getting bets on in-play is somewhat difficult, but my virtual account is well up on that game!
A great end to a great series, huge credit to both sides. They scored I think 3100 runs at 7.2 an over, in 5 matches.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
The cricket was truly great. I would like us to play NZ pretty much all the time.
On topic the fact that DM was the clear winner in the only section that counts this time the last time out makes me wonder why Corbyn is not pretty much nailed on to be last. The activists want to win and no one who wants to win is going to vote for him.
I also think, however, that name recognition and profile going into this is important. Liz Kendall has a lot of work to do to avoid being third.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
DavidL Some polls of Labour voters have had Corbyn in third, that may be more likely following the debate he was said to have won. In 2005 Liam Fox overtook Clarke with MPs for third and would have done so with members too, many Labour members see Kendall as Cameroon lite just as many Tories saw Clarke as LD lite
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Ha, I'm sure you weren't the only one enjoying a refreshing Friday evening!
I do worry that the majority of us that are not fanatical one way or the other but open to being persuaded, won't know what to think of the sight of two teams of schoolboys throwing sh!t at each other across the playing field - while completely ignoring the ball that's supposed to be the reason for the game they're playing...
On topic the fact that DM was the clear winner in the only section that counts this time the last time out makes me wonder why Corbyn is not pretty much nailed on to be last. The activists want to win and no one who wants to win is going to vote for him.
Is this the only section that counts this time? We also have the £3 voters. There are the Union votes that as yet have been slow to sign up. If they sign up their participation rate will be high. There are also the hard leftie nutters protesting today, socialist workers, greens and SNP able to participate with a £3 fee. and the Conservatives4Corbyn....
You clearly missed the irony of people drinking pricy coffee tweeting from expensive consumer electronics about their own "hardship"
My impression is that they're mainly complaining about other people's situations rather than their own. A quick search on Twitter for "hardship" didn't yield any examples of protestors bemoaning their own lot.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
The more important question is whether the great and good in parliament believe in democracy enough to have a free and fair referendum, with an impartial question and taxpayer money not used on either side.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
I was referring to the reason for opposition to the EU. But of course you knew that and just chose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your argument
Of course in answer to your question I will accept the result if IN wins.
Does that mean I won't continue to campaign for leaving? Of course not. There are still plenty of people campaigning for PR in spite of the last referendum being lost. And since we will continue to see Ever Closer Union you pretend doesn't exit there will be plenty of opportunity once again for me to point out how wrong/dishonest you were.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
The more important question is whether the great and good in parliament believe in democracy enough to have a free and fair referendum, with an impartial question and taxpayer money not used on either side.
Personally I think the question is just about as impartial as it could be.
Would I prefer YES to be the OUTvote - of course. But given that there had to be a choice one way or the other you can hardly complain if there is the tiniest slant to the way the Government wants. If you had been in power I assume it would have been the other way round which would have pleased me but would have been equally as biased just in the opposite direction.
Of course the taxpayer money issue is another point entirely and there I agree with you.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
The more important question is whether the great and good in parliament believe in democracy enough to have a free and fair referendum, with an impartial question and taxpayer money not used on either side.
Personally I think the question is just about as impartial as it could be.
Would I prefer YES to be the OUTvote - of course. But given that there had to be a choice one way or the other you can hardly complain if there is the tiniest slant to the way the Government wants. If you had been in power I assume it would have been the other way round which would have pleased me but would have been equally as biased just in the opposite direction.
Of course the taxpayer money issue is another point entirely and there I agree with you.
I suppose one could complain that we've had two recent referendums where the option to change from the status quo has been given the supposed advantage of Yes, so why shouldn't that be any different in the EU referendum?
Of course, we would point out that there is no status quo option on offer at this referendum.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
The more important question is whether the great and good in parliament believe in democracy enough to have a free and fair referendum, with an impartial question and taxpayer money not used on either side.
Personally I think the question is just about as impartial as it could be.
Would I prefer YES to be the OUTvote - of course. But given that there had to be a choice one way or the other you can hardly complain if there is the tiniest slant to the way the Government wants. If you had been in power I assume it would have been the other way round which would have pleased me but would have been equally as biased just in the opposite direction.
Of course the taxpayer money issue is another point entirely and there I agree with you.
You could argue that the real problem (from the Out point-of-view) is that the question is "should the UK remain in the EU".
In reality that is not an option, since "remain" means "more integration", which is not being explicitly asked.
Maybe that's what the British people want. May not. But I think we should be given a clearer question.
The cricket was truly great. I would like us to play NZ pretty much all the time.
On topic the fact that DM was the clear winner in the only section that counts this time the last time out makes me wonder why Corbyn is not pretty much nailed on to be last. The activists want to win and no one who wants to win is going to vote for him.
I also think, however, that name recognition and profile going into this is important. Liz Kendall has a lot of work to do to avoid being third.
Quite a lot of us would like to send a message not to forget the emotional ideals that made us bother to get involved in politics, without accidentally actually electing someone who wouldn't win a GE. So, ironically, the worse Jeremy is expected to do, the more some of us might give him a first preference. It's a bit like voting UKIP last month if you don't like the EU, even if you really wanted the Tories to win, because you want Cameron to be more convincingly sceptical.
Mr. Rullko, reminds me of people getting offended on behalf of other people.
Mr Dancer, I need your help on a matter of classical history.
I need an example of some unlikely/unholy alliances from days of yore, a sort of classical Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and I've got a complete mind blank.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
Of course.
In the same way that I accepted the result of the 1997 election, but sought to change it subsequently.
Mr. Eagles, that's a tricky one. You could go for the likes of Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus and maybe Ptolemy uniting to stop Antigonus Monopthalmus, or perhaps better would be the Aetolian League inviting the Romans into Greece [to help against the Macedonians] which led to the conquest of Greece. By Rome.
Edited extra bit: this is technically not really classical (too modern), but the Roman-Gothic alliance to defeat Attila could be another.
Mr. Eagles, that's a tricky one. You could go for the likes of Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus and maybe Ptolemy uniting to stop Antigonus Monopthalmus, or perhaps better would be the Aetolian League inviting the Romans into Greece [to help against the Macedonians] which led to the conquest of Greece. By Rome.
Thank you, one of those will feature in an upcoming thread, as I really didn't want to use the Molotov-Ribbentrop analogy as it would invoke Godwin/Godwinov's Law
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
The more important question is whether the great and good in parliament believe in democracy enough to have a free and fair referendum, with an impartial question and taxpayer money not used on either side.
Personally I think the question is just about as impartial as it could be.
Would I prefer YES to be the OUTvote - of course. But given that there had to be a choice one way or the other you can hardly complain if there is the tiniest slant to the way the Government wants. If you had been in power I assume it would have been the other way round which would have pleased me but would have been equally as biased just in the opposite direction.
Of course the taxpayer money issue is another point entirely and there I agree with you.
You could argue that the real problem (from the Out point-of-view) is that the question is "should the UK remain in the EU".
In reality that is not an option, since "remain" means "more integration", which is not being explicitly asked.
Maybe that's what the British people want. May not. But I think we should be given a clearer question.
'Remain' does not mean more integration. The purpose of successful negotiations is less integration. The fact that we have people organising 'OUT' shows that they are not interested in any outcome, but cannot offer an alternative.
what are the odds on Corbyn not coming last? I have a feeling he will do better than expected due to people who wouldn't normally vote signing up to vote just for him and sentimentality for the old left.
Mr. Rullko, reminds me of people getting offended on behalf of other people.
Mr Dancer, I need your help on a matter of classical history.
I need an example of some unlikely/unholy alliances from days of yore, a sort of classical Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and I've got a complete mind blank.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
The more important question is whether the great and good in parliament believe in democracy enough to have a free and fair referendum, with an impartial question and taxpayer money not used on either side.
Personally I think the question is just about as impartial as it could be.
Would I prefer YES to be the OUTvote - of course. But given that there had to be a choice one way or the other you can hardly complain if there is the tiniest slant to the way the Government wants. If you had been in power I assume it would have been the other way round which would have pleased me but would have been equally as biased just in the opposite direction.
Of course the taxpayer money issue is another point entirely and there I agree with you.
You could argue that the real problem (from the Out point-of-view) is that the question is "should the UK remain in the EU".
In reality that is not an option, since "remain" means "more integration", which is not being explicitly asked.
Maybe that's what the British people want. May not. But I think we should be given a clearer question.
'Remain' does not mean more integration. The purpose of successful negotiations is less integration. The fact that we have people organising 'OUT' shows that they are not interested in any outcome, but cannot offer an alternative.
No, people are organising out because they know that there will likely be a very short period between the end of negotiations and the referendum, and not enough time to organise and win it in that time period.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
The more important question is whether the great and good in parliament believe in democracy enough to have a free and fair referendum, with an impartial question and taxpayer money not used on either side.
Personally I think the question is just about as impartial as it could be.
Would I prefer YES to be the OUTvote - of course. But given that there had to be a choice one way or the other you can hardly complain if there is the tiniest slant to the way the Government wants. If you had been in power I assume it would have been the other way round which would have pleased me but would have been equally as biased just in the opposite direction.
Of course the taxpayer money issue is another point entirely and there I agree with you.
The Electoral Commission indicated a preference for something like:
Should the United Kingdom remain in the European Union or leave the European Union? [_] The United Kingdom should remain in the European Union [_] The United Kingdom should leave the European Union
If I had been in power I would have chosen that. If you really have to go to a "yes" or "no" question, then the positive action should be the yes, and the status quo should be the no.
Mr. Rullko, reminds me of people getting offended on behalf of other people.
Mr Dancer, I need your help on a matter of classical history.
I need an example of some unlikely/unholy alliances from days of yore, a sort of classical Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and I've got a complete mind blank.
Of course - the problem with reversing "Yes" and "No" is that the government will want to stay in, so that has to be the more positive-sounding "Yes" vote! Incidentally - is there a market on whether Cameron will campaign for In or Out? After all, it's apparently not certain yet. Grin
Mr. F, must confess, the Mithridatic Wars are a shocking omission in my reading.
Mithradates is a very good example of a morally grey hero. He sought peace with Rome; was subject to a blatant war of aggression; was appalled by Roman misgovernment in Asia Minor; freed slaves and reduced taxes - and conducted some appalling mass executions on Italians.
'Remain' does not mean more integration. The purpose of successful negotiations is less integration. The fact that we have people organising 'OUT' shows that they are not interested in any outcome, but cannot offer an alternative.
I haven't looked into this in detail, but I've heard that one of the reasons for not having purdah prior to the vote is to allow Cameron to tell us what he has achieved in the negotiations. This implies that Cameron is planning to take it to the wire. If that is the case, do you expect the Out campaign to basically not exist and only come into being once we've discovered that the PM hasn't got much at all?
I do remember reading (possibly here, written by you) that he buggered off north, and emerged from the Scythian realms, to everyone's surprise, a few years later, deposing his pro-Roman son.
On the morally grey aspect, Caesar's often described that way. Cao Cao, who had a significant role at the end of the Han dynasty (200AD, give or take) and who features prominently in The Three Kingdoms classical novel, is a bit like that too.
Mr. Ydoethur. evil bad Tories were doing that, though.
I think a lot of people will be bemused at this protest, especially as it's so soon after an election.
It's almost unbelievable that the far Left, in particular, has so little self-awareness at present. Do they actually want to forfeit what little support they have left?
Supping their Starbucks Frappucinos while busy tweeting from their iPads about their hardship....
Unlike you , some people with money still have feelings and care about others less fortunate than themselves.
Whoosh!
Ever the Nasty Nat eh Malcolm?
This bitterness can't be doing you any good.....what with your moral superiority and all.....
You were the one denigrating people just because they had apple products or liked coffee and tried to make out it was impossible for people like that to care about people more unfortunate than themselves. Nothing to do with being in favour of independence or bitterness. Very strange response from you indeed. You need to think now and again, not every poor person is a waster.
PS: I am well aware I am not perfect but I do have a conscience and count myself very lucky , even if I have worked very hard to get where I am.
As I wrote Whoosh!
You clearly missed the irony of people drinking pricy coffee tweeting from expensive consumer electronics about their own "hardship"
The especial irony is that Starbucks is the company that the protesters love to hate (tax) and is Apple (working conditions in Chinese factories)
The reason they deserve contempt is that they can't even be bother to apply their principles to the point of finding a different coffee shop.
Bit like the lefties demanding private schools be destroyed - but not before their little Flower has finished Roedean..
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
The more important question is whether the great and good in parliament believe in democracy enough to have a free and fair referendum, with an impartial question and taxpayer money not used on either side.
Personally I think the question is just about as impartial as it could be.
Would I prefer YES to be the OUTvote - of course. But given that there had to be a choice one way or the other you can hardly complain if there is the tiniest slant to the way the Government wants. If you had been in power I assume it would have been the other way round which would have pleased me but would have been equally as biased just in the opposite direction.
Of course the taxpayer money issue is another point entirely and there I agree with you.
You could argue that the real problem (from the Out point-of-view) is that the question is "should the UK remain in the EU".
In reality that is not an option, since "remain" means "more integration", which is not being explicitly asked.
Maybe that's what the British people want. May not. But I think we should be given a clearer question.
If the British public vote for IN, then I would accept it.
And then demand that they vote again and again and again until they get the right answer. Wouldn't want to violate the norms of the EU, after all.
It's said that Corbyn would be a disaster as leader, but I don't think he'd do any worse than Foot in 1983, and in this year's election Labour only polled 3% and 23 seats more than he (Foot) did.
I do remember reading (possibly here, written by you) that he buggered off north, and emerged from the Scythian realms, to everyone's surprise, a few years later, deposing his pro-Roman son.
On the morally grey aspect, Caesar's often described that way. Cao Cao, who had a significant role at the end of the Han dynasty (200AD, give or take) and who features prominently in The Three Kingdoms classical novel, is a bit like that too.
The classical hero (eg Achilles, Odysseus) is almost by definition, morally grey. He's a hero by virtue of his courage, skill in war, or cunning. He doesn't have to be good.
Mr. Eagles, that's a tricky one. You could go for the likes of Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus and maybe Ptolemy uniting to stop Antigonus Monopthalmus, or perhaps better would be the Aetolian League inviting the Romans into Greece [to help against the Macedonians] which led to the conquest of Greece. By Rome.
Thank you, one of those will feature in an upcoming thread, as I really didn't want to use the Molotov-Ribbentrop analogy as it would invoke Godwin/Godwinov's Law
Depending on the context and the level of betrayal relative to the ending of the MR pact, you could always go for Vortigern/Hengist & Horsa
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
The more important question is whether the great and good in parliament believe in democracy enough to have a free and fair referendum, with an impartial question and taxpayer money not used on either side.
Personally I think the question is just about as impartial as it could be.
Would I prefer YES to be the OUTvote - of course. But given that there had to be a choice one way or the other you can hardly complain if there is the tiniest slant to the way the Government wants. If you had been in power I assume it would have been the other way round which would have pleased me but would have been equally as biased just in the opposite direction.
Of course the taxpayer money issue is another point entirely and there I agree with you.
You could argue that the real problem (from the Out point-of-view) is that the question is "should the UK remain in the EU".
In reality that is not an option, since "remain" means "more integration", which is not being explicitly asked.
Maybe that's what the British people want. May not. But I think we should be given a clearer question.
'Remain' does not mean more integration. The purpose of successful negotiations is less integration. The fact that we have people organising 'OUT' shows that they are not interested in any outcome, but cannot offer an alternative.
Since the negotiations are not intended to roll back integration and Cameron is not even asking for that it seems rather pointless to discuss the results.
Mr. Eagles, that's a tricky one. You could go for the likes of Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus and maybe Ptolemy uniting to stop Antigonus Monopthalmus, or perhaps better would be the Aetolian League inviting the Romans into Greece [to help against the Macedonians] which led to the conquest of Greece. By Rome.
Thank you, one of those will feature in an upcoming thread, as I really didn't want to use the Molotov-Ribbentrop analogy as it would invoke Godwin/Godwinov's Law
Depending on the context and the level of betrayal relative to the ending of the MR pact, you could always go for Vortigern/Hengist & Horsa
Mr. Rullko, reminds me of people getting offended on behalf of other people.
Under what circumstances do you think it admissible to agitate on behalf of the poor? Based on this thread, the right wing playbook seems to be:
Question:Is the person fighting for better living standards for the poor, poor themselves? If so: Say they are entitled and acting in self interest. If not: Say they are hypocritical champagne socialists, offended on other people's behalf
Ukip will be OK because 12 per cent of the vote entitles them to squillions of Short money, always provided some self-absorbed idiot doesn't turn it all down, of course.
@Sk@SkyNews: SUNDAY TIMES FRONT PAGE: 'Tories: £12bn benefits cuts will go ahead' #skypapers
STOP THE WAR AGAINST THE POOR!
I thought this was 'dismantling the welfare state'? I continue to be baffled by people who think we've had any austerity at all. Do they never look at the spending figures? Or do they just prefer to emote and virtue signal rather than scale Mount Numeracy?
Osborne's surplus law makes a lot more sense in the context of the EU. Could it become the blueprint for all non-Eurozone members?
In the same way as Jacques Delors convinced the British Labour movement that the EU could bind the Conservatives to social protection, could Osborne use the EU renegotiations to bind the Labour party to fiscal conservatism?
The UK has only had 11 years of Budget Surplus since 1945 - only 2 were under a Tory Government.
@Sk@SkyNews: SUNDAY TIMES FRONT PAGE: 'Tories: £12bn benefits cuts will go ahead' #skypapers
STOP THE WAR AGAINST THE POOR!
I thought this was 'dismantling the welfare state'? I continue to be baffled by people who think we've had any austerity at all. Do they never look at the spending figures? Or do they just prefer to emote and virtue signal rather than scale Mount Numeracy?
So the Bedroom Tax didn't happen then? People are not bothered about the shares of GDP they are talking about actual changes of policy that have reduced or made difficult people's benefits payments. And it's usually the changes to disability benefits that are the most protested before you get on the usual high horse about fecklessness
@Sk@SkyNews: SUNDAY TIMES FRONT PAGE: 'Tories: £12bn benefits cuts will go ahead' #skypapers
STOP THE WAR AGAINST THE POOR!
I thought this was 'dismantling the welfare state'? I continue to be baffled by people who think we've had any austerity at all. Do they never look at the spending figures? Or do they just prefer to emote and virtue signal rather than scale Mount Numeracy?
I have a suggestion on how to end austerity.
All those who opposed austerity and/or marched today, give up soap and hygiene products and donate the money saved to the poor.
@Sk@SkyNews: SUNDAY TIMES FRONT PAGE: 'Tories: £12bn benefits cuts will go ahead' #skypapers
STOP THE WAR AGAINST THE POOR!
I thought this was 'dismantling the welfare state'? I continue to be baffled by people who think we've had any austerity at all. Do they never look at the spending figures? Or do they just prefer to emote and virtue signal rather than scale Mount Numeracy?
So the Bedroom Tax didn't happen then? People are not bothered about the shares of GDP they are talking about actual changes of policy that have reduced or made difficult people's benefits payments. And it's usually the changes to disability benefits that are the most protested before you get on the usual high horse about fecklessness
- The bedroom tax is a complete non-sequitur. - 'People are not bothered' that's simple assertion. I care a great deal about the burden that we're placing on our children and their children in terms of dealing with the legacy of our profligate public spending - and both major parties share the blame. - I'm totally in agreement about disability benefits; if the government start (for example) taxing PIP, I will be joining the demonstrations.
@Sk@SkyNews: SUNDAY TIMES FRONT PAGE: 'Tories: £12bn benefits cuts will go ahead' #skypapers
STOP THE WAR AGAINST THE POOR!
I thought this was 'dismantling the welfare state'? I continue to be baffled by people who think we've had any austerity at all. Do they never look at the spending figures? Or do they just prefer to emote and virtue signal rather than scale Mount Numeracy?
I have a suggestion on how to end austerity.
All those who opposed austerity and/or marched today, give up soap and hygiene products and donate the money saved to the poor.
Oh wait.
ISTR a statistic that Americas spending at the height of the space race in the 1960s was less than the American public spent on cosmetics or pet food.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
I was referring to the reason for opposition to the EU. But of course you knew that and just chose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your argument
Of course in answer to your question I will accept the result if IN wins.
Does that mean I won't continue to campaign for leaving? Of course not. There are still plenty of people campaigning for PR in spite of the last referendum being lost. And since we will continue to see Ever Closer Union you pretend doesn't exit there will be plenty of opportunity once again for me to point out how wrong/dishonest you were.
Another neverendum...
I am pretty relaxed about the outcome, and quite happy with ever closer union. Does the EU currently adversely impact upon me? Not at all. Do I have significant advantages as a result of being in the EU? The answer is yes. I have protection via the EWTD that no British government ever brought in, and thd right to move anywhere in the EU that I choose. I can recruit excellent staff from Greece, Spain and Portugal with a minimum of beaurocracy and hassle.
If the vote goes for Out then I suspect that we will arrange an EEA or Swiss type arrangement that is in many ways much the same, though slightly inferior, and campaign for re-entry to the full EU. With young people being pro EU, the other demographic changes and the kippers ageing then I expect to be back in the EU as a full member within a decade or so.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
I was referring to the reason for opposition to the EU. But of course you knew that and just chose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your argument
Of course in answer to your question I will accept the result if IN wins.
Does that mean I won't continue to campaign for leaving? Of course not. There are still plenty of people campaigning for PR in spite of the last referendum being lost. And since we will continue to see Ever Closer Union you pretend doesn't exit there will be plenty of opportunity once again for me to point out how wrong/dishonest you were.
Another neverendum...
I am pretty relaxed about the outcome, and quite happy with ever closer union. Does the EU currently adversely impact upon me? Not at all. Do I have significant advantages as a result of being in the EU? The answer is yes. I have protection via the EWTD that no British government ever brought in, and thd right to move anywhere in the EU that I choose. I can recruit excellent staff from Greece, Spain and Portugal with a minimum of beaurocracy and hassle.
If the vote goes for Out then I suspect that we will arrange an EEA or Swiss type arrangement that is in many ways much the same, though slightly inferior, and campaign for re-entry to the full EU. With young people being pro EU, the other demographic changes and the kippers ageing then I expect to be back in the EU as a full member within a decade or so.
Do you look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe?
@foxinsoxuk, I have an odd question for you (with a serious intent) Suppose that there was a strong, majority, view that the UK should become the 51st state, and that the USA was enthusiastic with the idea. Some key advantages would be: - Shared language - Lots of shared culture, especially in literature, films, pop music and so on - Shared measurements (miles etc) - Shared history bonding the countries of fighting and campaigning together ("Special Relationship") - Common legal history (IIRC US Law was based on British Law) - Access to a huge trade market - Being part of a superpower with much greater "punch" than the EU has ever shown
Would you answer "YES" in a referendum on becoming the 51st state.
If you voted "NO" but the result was a significant "YES" (say, a 2 to 1 majority), would you accept it and leave it at that.
What does anyone else think.
I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT THE UK JOINS THE USA - THIS IS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
@Sk@SkyNews: SUNDAY TIMES FRONT PAGE: 'Tories: £12bn benefits cuts will go ahead' #skypapers
STOP THE WAR AGAINST THE POOR!
I thought this was 'dismantling the welfare state'? I continue to be baffled by people who think we've had any austerity at all. Do they never look at the spending figures? Or do they just prefer to emote and virtue signal rather than scale Mount Numeracy?
I have a suggestion on how to end austerity.
All those who opposed austerity and/or marched today, give up soap and hygiene products and donate the money saved to the poor.
Oh wait.
Why do people who can't provide themselves with a home expect the rest of us to provide them with a spare bedroom?
@foxinsoxuk, I have an odd question for you (with a serious intent) Suppose that there was a strong, majority, view that the UK should become the 51st state, and that the USA was enthusiastic with the idea. Some key advantages would be: - Shared language - Lots of shared culture, especially in literature, films, pop music and so on - Shared measurements (miles etc) - Shared history bonding the countries of fighting and campaigning together ("Special Relationship") - Common legal history (IIRC US Law was based on British Law) - Access to a huge trade market - Being part of a superpower with much greater "punch" than the EU has ever shown
Would you answer "YES" in a referendum on becoming the 51st state.
If you voted "NO" but the result was a significant "YES" (say, a 2 to 1 majority), would you accept it and leave it at that.
What does anyone else think.
I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT THE UK JOINS THE USA - THIS IS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
I would probably vote yes on the grounds that the USA would give us more freedom to manage our own affairs than the EU.
Ukip is in serious financial difficulties after it “lost control” of its finances during the general election campaign, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
A funding gap of more than £500,000 may force the party to abandon its headquarters in central London in a desperate bid to avoid missing a legal deadline to settle all of its election expenses.
The IoS understands that Nigel Farage, Ukip’s leader, told an emergency meeting of the party’s National Executive Committee that Ukip would need to be bailed out by donors or take a loan to avoid legal action from the Electoral Commission.
Just catching up on the last day or two's threads after work, F1, cricket and life intervened - it appears that the buildup to the Scottish indy referendum will go down as a model of civilised discourse on this site, when compared to the next year or two debating EU membership. Can't we all at least start off by playing the ball...??
I was fairly well refreshed last night! It had been a long and busy week.
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
Wrong again. It has nothing to do with 'Brits', true or otherwise. It has everything to do with democracy - something that you as a Lib Dem would understandably have difficulty with.
So if democracy leads to an "In" vote in the referendum, you will accet it with good grace as the democratic verdict of the great British public?
I was referring to the reason for opposition to the EU. But of course you knew that and just chose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your argument
Of course in answer to your question I will accept the result if IN wins.
Does that mean I won't continue to campaign for leaving.
Another neverendum...
I am pretty relaxed about the outcome, and quite happy with ever closer union. Does the EU currently adversely impact upon me? Not at all. Do I have significant advantages as a result of being in the EU? The answer is yes. I have protection via the EWTD that no British government ever brought in, and thd right to move anywhere in the EU that I choose. I can recruit excellent staff from Greece, Spain and Portugal with a minimum of beaurocracy and hassle.
If the vote goes for Out then I suspect that we will arrange an EEA or Swiss type arrangement that is in many ways much the same, though slightly inferior, and campaign for re-entry to the full EU. With young people being pro EU, the other demographic changes and the kippers ageing then I expect to be back in the EU as a full member within a decade or so.
Do you look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe?
It will not be, so the question does not arise.
The EU may well evolve to be more like a federal system, but federalism is a decentered power system not a centralised one.
@foxinsoxuk, I have an odd question for you (with a serious intent) Suppose that there was a strong, majority, view that the UK should become the 51st state, and that the USA was enthusiastic with the idea. Some key advantages would be: - Shared language - Lots of shared culture, especially in literature, films, pop music and so on - Shared measurements (miles etc) - Shared history bonding the countries of fighting and campaigning together ("Special Relationship") - Common legal history (IIRC US Law was based on British Law) - Access to a huge trade market - Being part of a superpower with much greater "punch" than the EU has ever shown
Would you answer "YES" in a referendum on becoming the 51st state.
If you voted "NO" but the result was a significant "YES" (say, a 2 to 1 majority), would you accept it and leave it at that.
What does anyone else think.
I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT THE UK JOINS THE USA - THIS IS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
I would be happy, we would be the biggest state in the Union, giving us enormous strengths. We have to be a State though, not a colony re: Puerto Rico. We would be more comfortable within the Union than a similar arrangement in the EU. Outside of foreign policy and defence, a State within the Federation has more sovereignty than the UK has within the EU (though technically withdrawal from the USA would be more difficult than the EU).
There would need to be a lot of give and take with the admission though. Giving up the monarchy is a no go. That is a red line. However, in the US, States are more or less allowed to organise their structures of Government how they see fit.
States within the US are semi-sovereign. We could maintain our parliamentary democracy, our Monarch (who will be the monarch of the UK, head of state within the US, but the President will still be the Head of State of the States.
The monarch will act as governor, but their duties will be carried out by her prime minister.
Our existing laws on gun control must be acceptable to the rest of the Union. Our Armed forces would easily fall under the US armed forces umbrella.
It could work quite well, we might even get access to HBO.
@Sk@SkyNews: SUNDAY TIMES FRONT PAGE: 'Tories: £12bn benefits cuts will go ahead' #skypapers
STOP THE WAR AGAINST THE POOR!
I thought this was 'dismantling the welfare state'? I continue to be baffled by people who think we've had any austerity at all. Do they never look at the spending figures? Or do they just prefer to emote and virtue signal rather than scale Mount Numeracy?
I have a suggestion on how to end austerity.
All those who opposed austerity and/or marched today, give up soap and hygiene products and donate the money saved to the poor.
Oh wait.
Why do people who can't provide themselves with a home expect the rest of us to provide them with a spare bedroom?
And then claim that to not only provide them with free accommodation, but to fund this based on their need is a 'tax'.
Cheeky bas**ards.
There was quite a few people who deliberately refused to make up the difference, even though they could, in the anticipation of a Labour Government. HA have been reluctant to take people to court as they dont expect to get successful repossessions.
There will be people living in HA properties for decades and have never once seen a penny go from their bank account or their back pocket towards the rent of their home. They genuinely feel that having to pay £15 a week towards the £100 a week rent is a severe injustice.
@foxinsoxuk, I have an odd question for you (with a serious intent) Suppose that there was a strong, majority, view that the UK should become the 51st state, and that the USA was enthusiastic with the idea. Some key advantages would be: - Shared language - Lots of shared culture, especially in literature, films, pop music and so on - Shared measurements (miles etc) - Shared history bonding the countries of fighting and campaigning together ("Special Relationship") - Common legal history (IIRC US Law was based on British Law) - Access to a huge trade market - Being part of a superpower with much greater "punch" than the EU has ever shown
Would you answer "YES" in a referendum on becoming the 51st state.
If you voted "NO" but the result was a significant "YES" (say, a 2 to 1 majority), would you accept it and leave it at that.
What does anyone else think.
I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT THE UK JOINS THE USA - THIS IS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
In terms of fighting, I think that we have nearly as many times fighting each other as on the same side! Indeed in the war of 1812 we burnt down the White House.
If it was democratically arrived at then I would go along with such statehood (though probably it would be as the 54th state as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would want to be seperate states.
I lived in the USA for 5 years so am familiar with its Constitution. We would lose the monarchy, the Established Church, the House of Lords, our armed forces, our own currency and many other things. On the other hand we would gain the right to keep and bear firearms and have much better protection of free speech and assembly. It would make us a radically different country.
The EU plans nothing remotely like the same changes. We would be far better off as a culture sticking with the EU.
@foxinsoxuk, I have an odd question for you (with a serious intent) Suppose that there was a strong, majority, view that the UK should become the 51st state, and that the USA was enthusiastic with the idea. Some key advantages would be: - Shared language - Lots of shared culture, especially in literature, films, pop music and so on - Shared measurements (miles etc) - Shared history bonding the countries of fighting and campaigning together ("Special Relationship") - Common legal history (IIRC US Law was based on British Law) - Access to a huge trade market - Being part of a superpower with much greater "punch" than the EU has ever shown
Would you answer "YES" in a referendum on becoming the 51st state.
If you voted "NO" but the result was a significant "YES" (say, a 2 to 1 majority), would you accept it and leave it at that.
What does anyone else think.
I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT THE UK JOINS THE USA - THIS IS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
Cor, Gov? Any chance I can carry a gun? Er! Liquid measurement is different, they actually believe in Magna Carla, Monsanto wants to sell "all" bioenginered seed to all and every farmer, becoming bankrupt due to political corruption. I think No
In terms of fighting, I think that we have nearly as many times fighting each other as on the same side! Indeed in the war of 1812 we burnt down the White House.
If it was democratically arrived at then I would go along with such statehood (though probably it would be as the 54th state as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would want to be seperate states.
I lived in the USA for 5 years so am familiar with its Constitution. We would lose the monarchy, the Established Church, the House of Lords, our armed forces, our own currency and many other things. On the other hand we would gain the right to keep and bear firearms and have much better protection of free speech and assembly. It would make us a radically different country.
The EU plans nothing remotely like the same changes. We would be far better off as a culture sticking with the EU.
I agree with Fox's analysis, but yes, if there was a 2-1 majority for doing it, I'd shrug and go along with it, looking forward to a substantial built-in Democrat majority as a consolation.
States within the US are semi-sovereign. We could maintain our parliamentary democracy, our Monarch (who will be the monarch of the UK, head of state within the US, but the President will still be the Head of State of the States.
The monarch will act as governor, but their duties will be carried out by her prime minister.
Our existing laws on gun control must be acceptable to the rest of the Union. Our Armed forces would easily fall under the US armed forces umbrella.
It could work quite well, we might even get access to HBO.
That's typical of lack of ambition with which we approach these things. We should impose a constitutional monarchy and, in a symbolic gesture of solidarity, allow the Americans to inaugurate their own Kardashian family over our Windsors. This would leave David Cameron with a claim to the American throne. Within a few short years the Capitol will be just a council chamber in the reconstituted British Empire.
In terms of fighting, I think that we have nearly as many times fighting each other as on the same side! Indeed in the war of 1812 we burnt down the White House.
If it was democratically arrived at then I would go along with such statehood (though probably it would be as the 54th state as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would want to be seperate states.
I lived in the USA for 5 years so am familiar with its Constitution. We would lose the monarchy, the Established Church, the House of Lords, our armed forces, our own currency and many other things. On the other hand we would gain the right to keep and bear firearms and have much better protection of free speech and assembly. It would make us a radically different country.
The EU plans nothing remotely like the same changes. We would be far better off as a culture sticking with the EU.
I agree with Fox's analysis, but yes, if there was a 2-1 majority for doing it, I'd shrug and go along with it, looking forward to a substantial built-in Democrat majority as a consolation.
The Democrats on most issues are far more to the right than any mainstream political party in the UK. It's only their identity politics and union activities that are left wing.
The EU may well evolve to be more like a federal system, but federalism is a decentered power system not a centralised one.
The zealotry of your Europhilia is quite astonishing. You will be quoting the principle of subsidiarity next, and then powerful influence of the Committee of the Regions! The EU is centralised, and has strong centralising tendencies.
States within the US are semi-sovereign. We could maintain our parliamentary democracy, our Monarch (who will be the monarch of the UK, head of state within the US, but the President will still be the Head of State of the States.
The monarch will act as governor, but their duties will be carried out by her prime minister.
Our existing laws on gun control must be acceptable to the rest of the Union. Our Armed forces would easily fall under the US armed forces umbrella.
It could work quite well, we might even get access to HBO.
That's typical of lack of ambition with which we approach these things. We should impose a constitutional monarchy and, in a symbolic gesture of solidarity, allow the Americans to inaugurate their own Kardashian family over our Windsors. This would leave David Cameron with a claim to the American throne. Within a few short years the Capitol will be just a council chamber in the reconstituted British Empire.
The US Constitution of the USA bans monarchy, titles of nobility, State currencies, separates church and state and bans States from having their own armies or ships of war. To change the Constitution requires the ammendment to be passed with a 2/3 majority of the House of Representatives and Senate (in which we would have 2/102 seats) and be agreed by 2/3 of existing states each of which has its own bicameral system.
It has also been established in a long and bloody* civil war that states are not allowed to leave the Union. The EU is a model of flexibility in contrast.
*more US people died in the American Civil War than in all the other US wars put together with room to spare.
Some how, I don't think most in this country would love to become the 51st state in America.
Sunil's Commonwealth Plus!
Criteria 1
All current members of the Commonwealth!
And (criteria 1a) their overseas dependencies and external/overseas territories!
Criteria 2
All other countries with English as a de facto or de jure national or official language not included above!
And (criteria 2a) their overseas dependencies and/or territories!
Criteria 3 [Sunil laughs evilly!] As English is an official language of the European Language, all EU member states not already included in Criteria 1, 1a, 2, or 2a!
And (criteria 3a) all those countries' present-day external dependencies and territories!
Criteria 3b - just for a bit of fun, and maybe to annoy Putin! - EU member states' former territories in mainland Europe that were legally recognised at some time by treaty during the time period of the Imperial Conference (1921) and/or Statute of Westminster (1931).
@foxinsoxuk, I have an odd question for you (with a serious intent) Suppose that there was a strong, majority, view that the UK should become the 51st state, and that the USA was enthusiastic with the idea. Some key advantages would be: - Shared language - Lots of shared culture, especially in literature, films, pop music and so on - Shared measurements (miles etc) - Shared history bonding the countries of fighting and campaigning together ("Special Relationship") - Common legal history (IIRC US Law was based on British Law) - Access to a huge trade market - Being part of a superpower with much greater "punch" than the EU has ever shown
Would you answer "YES" in a referendum on becoming the 51st state.
If you voted "NO" but the result was a significant "YES" (say, a 2 to 1 majority), would you accept it and leave it at that.
What does anyone else think.
I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT THE UK JOINS THE USA - THIS IS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
In terms of fighting, I think that we have nearly as many times fighting each other as on the same side! Indeed in the war of 1812 we burnt down the White House.
If it was democratically arrived at then I would go along with such statehood (though probably it would be as the 54th state as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would want to be seperate states.
I lived in the USA for 5 years so am familiar with its Constitution. We would lose the monarchy, the Established Church, the House of Lords, our armed forces, our own currency and many other things. On the other hand we would gain the right to keep and bear firearms and have much better protection of free speech and assembly. It would make us a radically different country.
The EU plans nothing remotely like the same changes. We would be far better off as a culture sticking with the EU.
We have fought on opposite sides precisely twice: in the Revolutionary War and in the War of 1812. We have definitely fought on the same side many more times: Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf, Kosovo, Bosnia just in the last twenty years.
The EU may well evolve to be more like a federal system, but federalism is a decentered power system not a centralised one.
The zealotry of your Europhilia is quite astonishing. You will be quoting the principle of subsidiarity next, and then powerful influence of the Committee of the Regions! The EU is centralised, and has strong centralising tendencies.
All political bodies have centralising tendencies, with Westminster one of the worst offenders.. Federalisation is a form of devolved power so quite different in nature.
The EU may well evolve to be more like a federal system, but federalism is a decentered power system not a centralised one.
The zealotry of your Europhilia is quite astonishing. You will be quoting the principle of subsidiarity next, and then powerful influence of the Committee of the Regions! The EU is centralised, and has strong centralising tendencies.
All political bodies have centralising tendencies, with Westminster one of the worst offenders.. Federalisation is a form of devolved power so quite different in nature.
notme Obama's Democrats have raised taxes on the rich, increased spending until the GOP won back Congress, increased the role of the federal government in healthcare and distrust school choice, withdrew troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible and have been reluctant to take military action abroad even with the growth of ISIS beyond the odd airstrike, are pro abortion as well as gay marriage, treat climate change as a religion and are pro immigration, it is difficult to argue they are right of Cameron's Tories let alone UKIP
All political bodies have centralising tendencies, with Westminster one of the worst offenders.. Federalisation is a form of devolved power so quite different in nature.
Again, this assertion is contrary to history and political reality. Westminster has spent the last 20 years giving away powers, both to inferior legislatures and governments, and to local authorities. It appears that this trend will continue in this Parliament. Meanwhile, new powers have continued to accrue to Brussels and Luxembourg. No powers have been returned to the member states. No powers have been returned to local or provincial government. The principle of subsidiarity is entirely absent in practice.
All political bodies have centralising tendencies, with Westminster one of the worst offenders.. Federalisation is a form of devolved power so quite different in nature.
Again, this assertion is contrary to history and political reality. Westminster has spent the last 20 years giving away powers, both to inferior legislatures and governments, and to local authorities. It appears that this trend will continue in this Parliament. Meanwhile, new powers have continued to accrue to Brussels and Luxembourg. No powers have been returned to the member states. No powers have been returned to local or provincial government. The principle of subsidiarity is entirely absent in practice.
Federalism is a political system of dual sovereignty with powers explicitly split between a central Federal Government and a state government. It is quite a separate system to a Unitary state.
Westminster is very centalising. For example overriding local governments in taxation or planning. Can a county set its own education policy without referring to the central government if for example it wanted to abolish free schools or reintroduce academic selection? In all these matters Local governments in the UK can only do what the central government permits them to do.
Another example is the NHS, where commissioning is increasingly centralised by NHS England, and Trusts are responsible directly to the ministry, with no local democratic control.
Thanks to everyone who responded to my 51st State "Thought Experiment". (I would vote "No", BTW :-) )
I was just trying to provoke some thought about the EU debate from a more oblique angle. The debate seems to have gotten bogged down a bit along the same familiar lines - like trench warfare.
It's not about Little Englanders or Europhile Traitors, but that seems to be the between-the-lines implications of some of the posts that I've been seeing. However, I am NOT blaming people for this. Passions run high. How you see yourself is a deep and personal part of our identity.
Personally, I like the idea of inter-governmental co-operation to tackle problems. I like the economic benefits of a free trade area. I am optimistic that the EU can be made to work better, though I recognise that it is a very difficult organisation to move. Mrs D is a European. I've lived and worked in Europe. I've dabbled in foreign languages and holiday regularly in Europe. I love Europe. It's so refreshingly different to Britain, though I'm always glad to come home.
But I don't feel "European". I feel mildly irritated to be told that I am now a "European Citizen" without me consenting to become one (just as I would if any foreign citizenship was conferred to me).
I don't want to leave the EU, but I really wish that the EU would knock off this "Ever Closer Union" lark - and do it explicitly in a Clause 4 moment. The zealotry of the hard-core of devotees of this doctrine make them look like a cult.
@foxinsoxuk, I have an odd question for you (with a serious intent) Suppose that there was a strong, majority, view that the UK should become the 51st state, and that the USA was enthusiastic with the idea. Some key advantages would be: - Shared language - Lots of shared culture, especially in literature, films, pop music and so on - Shared measurements (miles etc) - Shared history bonding the countries of fighting and campaigning together ("Special Relationship") - Common legal history (IIRC US Law was based on British Law) - Access to a huge trade market - Being part of a superpower with much greater "punch" than the EU has ever shown
Would you answer "YES" in a referendum on becoming the 51st state.
If you voted "NO" but the result was a significant "YES" (say, a 2 to 1 majority), would you accept it and leave it at that.
What does anyone else think.
I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT THE UK JOINS THE USA - THIS IS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
As one who has lived in both, and is a citizen of both.....
much of what you say is true, but there are too many fundamental differences of view between citizens of the US and UK, not least the size and scope of government.
Thanks to everyone who responded to my 51st State "Thought Experiment". (I would vote "No", BTW :-) )
I was just trying to provoke some thought about the EU debate from a more oblique angle. The debate seems to have gotten bogged down a bit along the same familiar lines - like trench warfare.
It's not about Little Englanders or Europhile Traitors, but that seems to be the between-the-lines implications of some of the posts that I've been seeing. However, I am NOT blaming people for this. Passions run high. How you see yourself is a deep and personal part of our identity.
Personally, I like the idea of inter-governmental co-operation to tackle problems. I like the economic benefits of a free trade area. I am optimistic that the EU can be made to work better, though I recognise that it is a very difficult organisation to move. Mrs D is a European. I've lived and worked in Europe. I've dabbled in foreign languages and holiday regularly in Europe. I love Europe. It's so refreshingly different to Britain, though I'm always glad to come home.
But I don't feel "European". I feel mildly irritated to be told that I am now a "European Citizen" without me consenting to become one (just as I would if any foreign citizenship was conferred to me).
I don't want to leave the EU, but I really wish that the EU would knock off this "Ever Closer Union" lark - and do it explicitly in a Clause 4 moment. The zealotry of the hard-core of devotees of this doctrine make them look like a cult.
The 'ever closer union' is a religion and cannot be doubted or questioned, which is why they will probably keep kicking the can down the road on Greece rather than call their bluff - of which the Greeks are surely aware.
The US Open is being played at Chambers Bay, in Washington state. It is close to Tacoma, where a bridge known as 'Galloping Gertie' was built in the late 1930s....
Last night I went to a comedy gig in Islington. When I was waiting for the train at East Croydon, nobody told me that it was going to be raining in Islington when I got there. I got soaked to the skin. I blame Andy Burnham. Clearly he has no chance of ever becoming LOTLP, let alone PM.
TimB/Disraeli I would think more likely would be a union of New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the UK which still share a parliamentary system and a common monarch. In some respects the UK is more like Germany than the US
TimB/Disraeli I would think more likely would be a union of New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the UK which still share a parliamentary system and a common monarch. In some respects the UK is more like Germany than the US
TSE Confirms Burnham was never the leftwing candidate many made out, after all he was promoted by Blair
Having established himself as the most lefty sensible candidate already though, he can probably still rely on votes from that quarter though even as he now goes after other sectors. Seems tactically sound.
Some how, I don't think most in this country would love to become the 51st state in America.
The First and Second Amendments are fantastic. In a forced choice I'd much prefer to merge with the USA than become a province of the EU And the EU Denier foxinsoxuk can bugger off and live in Greece.
Thanks to everyone who responded to my 51st State "Thought Experiment". (I would vote "No", BTW :-) )
I was just trying to provoke some thought about the EU debate from a more oblique angle. The debate seems to have gotten bogged down a bit along the same familiar lines - like trench warfare.
It's not about Little Englanders or Europhile Traitors, but that seems to be the between-the-lines implications of some of the posts that I've been seeing. However, I am NOT blaming people for this. Passions run high. How you see yourself is a deep and personal part of our identity.
Personally, I like the idea of inter-governmental co-operation to tackle problems. I like the economic benefits of a free trade area. I am optimistic that the EU can be made to work better, though I recognise that it is a very difficult organisation to move. Mrs D is a European. I've lived and worked in Europe. I've dabbled in foreign languages and holiday regularly in Europe. I love Europe. It's so refreshingly different to Britain, though I'm always glad to come home.
But I don't feel "European". I feel mildly irritated to be told that I am now a "European Citizen" without me consenting to become one (just as I would if any foreign citizenship was conferred to me).
I don't want to leave the EU, but I really wish that the EU would knock off this "Ever Closer Union" lark - and do it explicitly in a Clause 4 moment. The zealotry of the hard-core of devotees of this doctrine make them look like a cult.
The reluctance to even slow ever closer union, though they have not been able to avoid consider it, and the sheer contempt occasionally displayed by EU leaders - bureaucrats and some heads of government - towards those not comfortable with such a goal, is why I now support leaving after for so long sticking with staying in. They will never countenance changing direction and will do no more than delay for a time.
All political bodies have centralising tendencies, with Westminster one of the worst offenders.. Federalisation is a form of devolved power so quite different in nature.
Again, this assertion is contrary to history and political reality. Westminster has spent the last 20 years giving away powers, both to inferior legislatures and governments, and to local authorities. It appears that this trend will continue in this Parliament. Meanwhile, new powers have continued to accrue to Brussels and Luxembourg. No powers have been returned to the member states. No powers have been returned to local or provincial government. The principle of subsidiarity is entirely absent in practice.
Federalism is a political system of dual sovereignty with powers explicitly split between a central Federal Government and a state government. It is quite a separate system to a Unitary state.
Westminster is very centalising. For example overriding local governments in taxation or planning. Can a county set its own education policy without referring to the central government if for example it wanted to abolish free schools or reintroduce academic selection? In all these matters Local governments in the UK can only do what the central government permits them to do.
Another example is the NHS, where commissioning is increasingly centralised by NHS England, and Trusts are responsible directly to the ministry, with no local democratic control.
Mr FoxinsocksEU your Europhilia is breathtaking, the above reply didn't respond to any of LIAMT's points at all. What you say is true in theory, and the EU is federal in theory, but in practise it doesn't happen. There has been no powers of consequence that have been ceded to the EU that have ever been returned to member states of local governments.
Burbling on about the federal EU is just smoke and mirrors, it might be what it says on the tin, but it in no way described the contents. If the EU was a product it would be in gross violation of the Trade Descriptions Act (1968) which ironically given the discussion doesn't meaningfully exist either having been replaced largely by Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the implementation of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, so much for federalism.
Some how, I don't think most in this country would love to become the 51st state in America.
The First and Second Amendments are fantastic. In a forced choice I'd much prefer to merge with the USA than become a province of the EU And the EU Denier foxinsoxuk can bugger off and live in Greece.
That's you though - I'd suggest most in this country don't want closer union with the EU, or being apart of the US. Personally, I'd absolutely hate to merge with the USA. Their gun culture and sheer obsession with religion are only a few things that I wouldn't be able to deal with.
Comments
It is only going to get worse as the day closes. The BOOers have been waiting for this day a long time, convinced that no true Brit could want to belong to the EU.
I think both sides were odds of 10/1 at some point during that! I'm in the big sandpit this weekend where actually getting bets on in-play is somewhat difficult, but my virtual account is well up on that game!
A great end to a great series, huge credit to both sides. They scored I think 3100 runs at 7.2 an over, in 5 matches.
Bring on the convicts! Kangaroos!
On topic the fact that DM was the clear winner in the only section that counts this time the last time out makes me wonder why Corbyn is not pretty much nailed on to be last. The activists want to win and no one who wants to win is going to vote for him.
I also think, however, that name recognition and profile going into this is important. Liz Kendall has a lot of work to do to avoid being third.
I do worry that the majority of us that are not fanatical one way or the other but open to being persuaded, won't know what to think of the sight of two teams of schoolboys throwing sh!t at each other across the playing field - while completely ignoring the ball that's supposed to be the reason for the game they're playing...
We also have the £3 voters.
There are the Union votes that as yet have been slow to sign up. If they sign up their participation rate will be high.
There are also the hard leftie nutters protesting today, socialist workers, greens and SNP able to participate with a £3 fee.
and the Conservatives4Corbyn....
Maybe enough to make Corbyn 3rd, possibly 2nd?
Of course in answer to your question I will accept the result if IN wins.
Does that mean I won't continue to campaign for leaving? Of course not. There are still plenty of people campaigning for PR in spite of the last referendum being lost. And since we will continue to see Ever Closer Union you pretend doesn't exit there will be plenty of opportunity once again for me to point out how wrong/dishonest you were.
Would I prefer YES to be the OUTvote - of course. But given that there had to be a choice one way or the other you can hardly complain if there is the tiniest slant to the way the Government wants. If you had been in power I assume it would have been the other way round which would have pleased me but would have been equally as biased just in the opposite direction.
Of course the taxpayer money issue is another point entirely and there I agree with you.
Of course, we would point out that there is no status quo option on offer at this referendum.
You could argue that the real problem (from the Out point-of-view) is that the question is "should the UK remain in the EU".
In reality that is not an option, since "remain" means "more integration", which is not being explicitly asked.
Maybe that's what the British people want. May not. But I think we should be given a clearer question.
It's a dangerous game, though!
Mr. Rullko, reminds me of people getting offended on behalf of other people.
I need an example of some unlikely/unholy alliances from days of yore, a sort of classical Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and I've got a complete mind blank.
In the same way that I accepted the result of the 1997 election, but sought to change it subsequently.
"Should
ScotlandThe United Kingdom be an independent country?"Edited extra bit: this is technically not really classical (too modern), but the Roman-Gothic alliance to defeat Attila could be another.
Should the United Kingdom remain in the European Union or leave the European Union?
[_] The United Kingdom should remain in the European Union
[_] The United Kingdom should leave the European Union
If I had been in power I would have chosen that. If you really have to go to a "yes" or "no" question, then the positive action should be the yes, and the status quo should be the no.
Of course - the problem with reversing "Yes" and "No" is that the government will want to stay in, so that has to be the more positive-sounding "Yes" vote! Incidentally - is there a market on whether Cameron will campaign for In or Out? After all, it's apparently not certain yet. Grin
I do remember reading (possibly here, written by you) that he buggered off north, and emerged from the Scythian realms, to everyone's surprise, a few years later, deposing his pro-Roman son.
On the morally grey aspect, Caesar's often described that way. Cao Cao, who had a significant role at the end of the Han dynasty (200AD, give or take) and who features prominently in The Three Kingdoms classical novel, is a bit like that too.
The reason they deserve contempt is that they can't even be bother to apply their principles to the point of finding a different coffee shop.
Bit like the lefties demanding private schools be destroyed - but not before their little Flower has finished Roedean..
And then demand that they vote again and again and again until they get the right answer. Wouldn't want to violate the norms of the EU, after all.
The local manager was apparently very happy with the increase in business due to all the protesters.
https://twitter.com/TheRedRag/status/612237310172753920
Wasn't that just a joke post rather than a quote from an actual Starbucks manager?
Based on this thread, the right wing playbook seems to be:
Question:Is the person fighting for better living standards for the poor, poor themselves?
If so: Say they are entitled and acting in self interest.
If not: Say they are hypocritical champagne socialists, offended on other people's behalf
Classic play the man not the ball strategy
http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/matches/round=268032/match=300269469/index.html#statistics#nosticky
People are not bothered about the shares of GDP they are talking about actual changes of policy that have reduced or made difficult people's benefits payments. And it's usually the changes to disability benefits that are the most protested before you get on the usual high horse about fecklessness
All those who opposed austerity and/or marched today, give up soap and hygiene products and donate the money saved to the poor.
Oh wait.
- 'People are not bothered' that's simple assertion. I care a great deal about the burden that we're placing on our children and their children in terms of dealing with the legacy of our profligate public spending - and both major parties share the blame.
- I'm totally in agreement about disability benefits; if the government start (for example) taxing PIP, I will be joining the demonstrations.
I am pretty relaxed about the outcome, and quite happy with ever closer union. Does the EU currently adversely impact upon me? Not at all. Do I have significant advantages as a result of being in the EU? The answer is yes. I have protection via the EWTD that no British government ever brought in, and thd right to move anywhere in the EU that I choose. I can recruit excellent staff from Greece, Spain and Portugal with a minimum of beaurocracy and hassle.
If the vote goes for Out then I suspect that we will arrange an EEA or Swiss type arrangement that is in many ways much the same, though slightly inferior, and campaign for re-entry to the full EU. With young people being pro EU, the other demographic changes and the kippers ageing then I expect to be back in the EU as a full member within a decade or so.
My suggestion would be:
"Should
ScotlandThe United Kingdom be an independent country?"Would you really vote "No"?
Suppose that there was a strong, majority, view that the UK should become the 51st state, and that the USA was enthusiastic with the idea. Some key advantages would be:
- Shared language
- Lots of shared culture, especially in literature, films, pop music and so on
- Shared measurements (miles etc)
- Shared history bonding the countries of fighting and campaigning together ("Special Relationship")
- Common legal history (IIRC US Law was based on British Law)
- Access to a huge trade market
- Being part of a superpower with much greater "punch" than the EU has ever shown
Would you answer "YES" in a referendum on becoming the 51st state.
If you voted "NO" but the result was a significant "YES" (say, a 2 to 1 majority), would you accept it and leave it at that.
What does anyone else think.
I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT THE UK JOINS THE USA - THIS IS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
A funding gap of more than £500,000 may force the party to abandon its headquarters in central London in a desperate bid to avoid missing a legal deadline to settle all of its election expenses.
The IoS understands that Nigel Farage, Ukip’s leader, told an emergency meeting of the party’s National Executive Committee that Ukip would need to be bailed out by donors or take a loan to avoid legal action from the Electoral Commission.
http://ind.pn/1MVNgkB
The EU may well evolve to be more like a federal system, but federalism is a decentered power system not a centralised one.
There would need to be a lot of give and take with the admission though. Giving up the monarchy is a no go. That is a red line. However, in the US, States are more or less allowed to organise their structures of Government how they see fit.
States within the US are semi-sovereign. We could maintain our parliamentary democracy, our Monarch (who will be the monarch of the UK, head of state within the US, but the President will still be the Head of State of the States.
The monarch will act as governor, but their duties will be carried out by her prime minister.
Our existing laws on gun control must be acceptable to the rest of the Union. Our Armed forces would easily fall under the US armed forces umbrella.
It could work quite well, we might even get access to HBO.
Cheeky bas**ards.
There was quite a few people who deliberately refused to make up the difference, even though they could, in the anticipation of a Labour Government. HA have been reluctant to take people to court as they dont expect to get successful repossessions.
There will be people living in HA properties for decades and have never once seen a penny go from their bank account or their back pocket towards the rent of their home. They genuinely feel that having to pay £15 a week towards the £100 a week rent is a severe injustice.
The sense of entitlement is shocking.
If it was democratically arrived at then I would go along with such statehood (though probably it would be as the 54th state as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would want to be seperate states.
I lived in the USA for 5 years so am familiar with its Constitution. We would lose the monarchy, the Established Church, the House of Lords, our armed forces, our own currency and many other things. On the other hand we would gain the right to keep and bear firearms and have much better protection of free speech and assembly. It would make us a radically different country.
The EU plans nothing remotely like the same changes. We would be far better off as a culture sticking with the EU.
'Even my mum said we'd gone back to the 1970s', says Labour frontrunner Andy Burnham as he admits party became 'toxic' under Miliband
Has made bid to outflank leadership rivals Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall
45-year-old Liverpudlian reveals mum took him to task over mansion tax
Now he attacks Ed Miliband’s plan to tax homes worth £2million plus
Has vowed to take party back to the heyday of Tony Blair’s New Labour
http://dailym.ai/1BuCSiU
It has also been established in a long and bloody* civil war that states are not allowed to leave the Union. The EU is a model of flexibility in contrast.
*more US people died in the American Civil War than in all the other US wars put together with room to spare.
Criteria 1
All current members of the Commonwealth!
And (criteria 1a) their overseas dependencies and external/overseas territories!
Criteria 2
All other countries with English as a de facto or de jure national or official language not included above!
And (criteria 2a) their overseas dependencies and/or territories!
Criteria 3
[Sunil laughs evilly!]
As English is an official language of the European Language, all EU member states not already included in Criteria 1, 1a, 2, or 2a!
And (criteria 3a) all those countries' present-day external dependencies and territories!
Criteria 3b - just for a bit of fun, and maybe to annoy Putin! - EU member states' former territories in mainland Europe that were legally recognised at some time by treaty during the time period of the Imperial Conference (1921) and/or Statute of Westminster (1931).
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/antique-illustrated-map-of-the-world-anonymous.jpg
Westminster is very centalising. For example overriding local governments in taxation or planning. Can a county set its own education policy without referring to the central government if for example it wanted to abolish free schools or reintroduce academic selection? In all these matters Local governments in the UK can only do what the central government permits them to do.
Another example is the NHS, where commissioning is increasingly centralised by NHS England, and Trusts are responsible directly to the ministry, with no local democratic control.
(I would vote "No", BTW :-) )
I was just trying to provoke some thought about the EU debate from a more oblique angle.
The debate seems to have gotten bogged down a bit along the same familiar lines - like trench warfare.
It's not about Little Englanders or Europhile Traitors, but that seems to be the between-the-lines implications of some of the posts that I've been seeing.
However, I am NOT blaming people for this. Passions run high. How you see yourself is a deep and personal part of our identity.
Personally, I like the idea of inter-governmental co-operation to tackle problems. I like the economic benefits of a free trade area. I am optimistic that the EU can be made to work better, though I recognise that it is a very difficult organisation to move.
Mrs D is a European. I've lived and worked in Europe. I've dabbled in foreign languages and holiday regularly in Europe. I love Europe. It's so refreshingly different to Britain, though I'm always glad to come home.
But I don't feel "European". I feel mildly irritated to be told that I am now a "European Citizen" without me consenting to become one (just as I would if any foreign citizenship was conferred to me).
I don't want to leave the EU, but I really wish that the EU would knock off this "Ever Closer Union" lark - and do it explicitly in a Clause 4 moment. The zealotry of the hard-core of devotees of this doctrine make them look like a cult.
much of what you say is true, but there are too many fundamental differences of view between citizens of the US and UK, not least the size and scope of government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFzu6CNtqec
In a forced choice I'd much prefer to merge with the USA than become a province of the EU
And the EU Denier foxinsoxuk can bugger off and live in Greece.
Burbling on about the federal EU is just smoke and mirrors, it might be what it says on the tin, but it in no way described the contents. If the EU was a product it would be in gross violation of the Trade Descriptions Act (1968) which ironically given the discussion doesn't meaningfully exist either having been replaced largely by Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the implementation of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, so much for federalism.