Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rob C on April 11, 2019, 05:50:42 am
-
"Hey, I learned a new word: rescission. Had to go and look it up.
As for Brexit, it is on going, or so it seems. I remember starting a thread about it a few eons ago, it went viral, as folks would say today. Anyway, the GB was never truly inside the EU - different currency and border policies - so not sure what all the fuss is about ;D"
Paulo Bizarro
................
Indeed; it was uniquely able to make the most of the best parts.
Unfortunately, as the majority lives in England and not the peripheral countries of the Union, the numerical weight of old-man little englander thinking overwhelmed by just four percent. We perpetually hear about sixteen or seventeen million voting out, but the almost equal number voting in is never mentioned, making it sound as if there had been a sixteen or seventeen million majority, which in a population of around sixty million would seem convincing. But a reality of four pecent, on something so momentous and irreversible if implemented (unlike a party vote, you can't vote back in again when you find you were fed a pack of fibs)?
However, the repeated failures to reach an acceptable consensus in Parliament, beyond a huge majority refusal to "crash out" without a deal, reveals one fact: the majority of those there knows that it would be voting for a worse future for all its people, regardless of which way they had voted at the referendum. A couple of years down the line, voters would forget their own responsibilty in the matter and turn around and blame their local MP.
It's how it always works: Churchill held the country together through WW2 and was rewarded by losing power.
Who'd trust a blind majority?
Rob
-
Rob,
Indeed, memory is short these days, and 2 years is a long time. I heard this morning that an extension was approved until October 31st (Halloween, was that on purpose I wonder). What I find curious is the fact that the initial Brexit advocates have long exited the scene... leaving the hot potato in somebody else's hands.
-
I hope that this has legislators all over the world re-examining the concept of 50% + 1 as being enough to determine matters of this level of importance. If I'm not mistaken, most country's constitution amendments require 2/3s majority (or something like that) as a way to make sure that people REALLY REALLY want what the change.
-
+1 to everything by everybody, so far.
And I'll leave it at that for fear of loosing my cool, calling Cameron, the members of the ERG, Farage and company a bunch of ****s and regret being banned from LuLa.
-
KLaban +1
-
Indeed, the idea of making a hard-to-reverse change that is effectively at the constitutional level by just a slender simple majority of those who bothered to turn out is insanity. Consider the way other countries handle big decisions like this:
- US constitutional amendments require approval by at least 3/4 of the states.
- Australian constitutional amendments require a national-wide majority and also a majority in at least 4 of 6 states — and voting is "mandatory", so with turnout well over 90%.
- Italy often uses a system for ballot initiatives where the support of the majority of _eligible_ voters is required (though one can thus vote "no" by just staying home, opening the risk of voter intimidation by the "no" faction.)
- Some such changes require approval in two votes, separated in time by an intervening election or such.
- Super-majorities of 60% or 2/3 are also common when a clearer "consensus" for change is desirable.
-
Supermajority? in retrospect, yes.
However, a supermajority was not required when voting to join the EU either (although it turned out to be one ultimately). At this point, the problem is not the referendum result, supermajority, or the role of plebiscite. The problem is that the parliament is equally divided as the public.
Having said that, the EU was a completely different beast when the UK voted the first time.
-
I'm not sure what good an extension to 10/31/2019 will do. Parliament has voted three times against the existing deal which the EU said it is unwilling to renegotiate, so it will not be surprising to see a repeat performance in late October. Until then, I expect my news channel to be relatively Brexit free.
-
Supermajority? in retrospect, yes.
However, a supermajority was not required when voting to join the EU either (although it turned out to be one ultimately). At this point, the problem is not the referendum result, supermajority, or the role of plebiscite. The problem is that the parliament is equally divided as the public.
Having said that, the EU was a completely different beast when the UK voted the first time.
Divided on everything except leaving without a deal.
-
I don't mean to be the partypoop, but I actually like the way this pans out. The original vote wasn't so much about being part of the EU, but whether being part of the EU makes a single nation stronger to protect its self-identity in a group relative to globalisation and the worldstage. Because that was the promise. In retrospect it primarily became a large monster with too much regulation and the quick addition of too many weak links so that the original promise never held. The EU simply became itself that "global" outside force that crushes the self-identity of nations.
And this just becomes very clear now. And the longer they drag this out, the more evident it is. The EU should have moved to England immediately and help them solve the problems and, if neccesary, accommodate the brexit, thereby showing the strength of cooperation. See what they do instead?
I frankly believe that for several nations currently the EU is not beneficial at all, and the more chaos ensues, the better. Not beneficial to individuals, but in end, better for everyone, because the EU in its current form isn't beneficial to individuals either.
-
KLaban +1
+2
-
I don’t understand why the Brits have to make it all so complicated? Just crash out of EU and build the damn wall with Ireland. Done!
-
I don't mean to be the partypoop, but I actually like the way this pans out. The original vote wasn't so much about being part of the EU, but whether being part of the EU makes a single nation stronger to protect its self-identity in a group relative to globalisation and the worldstage. Because that was the promise. In retrospect it primarily became a large monster with too much regulation and the quick addition of too many weak links so that the original promise never held. The EU simply became itself that "global" outside force that crushes the self-identity of nations.
And this just becomes very clear now. And the longer they drag this out, the more evident it is. The EU should have moved to England immediately and help them solve the problems and, if neccesary, accommodate the brexit, thereby showing the strength of cooperation. See what they do instead?
I frankly believe that for several nations currently the EU is not beneficial at all, and the more chaos ensues, the better. Not beneficial to individuals, but in end, better for everyone, because the EU in its current form isn't beneficial to individuals either.
That's a very generous assessment, Oscar, but I think a mistaken one. It was about hatred of foreigners i.e. non-native anglophones (having said which, anti-Americanism is also strong in some quarters), but mostly a fear of waves of migrants, mostly of the Moslem persuasion, and that harks back to the deeds done in the immediate post-war years when 1947 saw the Independence of India and the killings, riots and train hold-up massacres of people fleeing to the new, twin-country of Pakistan. Some got lost and went to London and Luton. Combined with the West Indies boatloads disembarking and moving to London, the country saw the birth of what led to the "Rivers of blood" speech that today seems less than fantasy. Where America reaps the price of slavery, the UK the price of empire. As a kid newly back in the UK during the 50s, I never heard of drugs in the local reality; the only ones I knew about were to be found in American detective books. Today, all kids know all there is to know on the topic. Rule the dreadlocks.
In essence, the British migrant problem is not a new one from Europe, but a much older version. How ironic to watch some of those very new Britons condemn the possibility of others moving to Britain today...
Yes, the situation has meant that member states lose some autonomy, but so you do the moment you join any club that has rules, and without rules, the situation remains, literally, lawless, which is not good.
Some Brits get excited over basic things such as identity cards, seeing them as some threat of 1984. I carry one everyday, and it has been priceless on each of the occasions when I have lost consciousness and the medics arrive to help me. As vital my medical card that instantly grants me (so far!) access to a hospital bed. My driving licence, too, is always carried and one faces a fine for not having it if stopped for some reason. Last I knew, in the UK you had only to turn up at a cop shop somewhere within three days to show it.... who is sloppy now, who has the mañana syndrome?
My first Vogue shoot took me to Amsterdam; I was amazed to find that everybody I met spoke almost perfect American. It was an eye-opener to the insular nation we, the Brits, were. Yes, we travelled the world in our wooden sailing ships, but we remained as closed as it is possible to be. Those fluent in other languages are pretty rare. We studied French in school, but the only French that we ended up being able to understand came from the lips of fellow Brits. Confront us with a real French person and we had no bloody idea what was being said. Reading was something different, and why I was able to enjoy French PHOTO.
A big part of the problem is that migrants of all colours represent, at the very least, alternatives to blame for things that go wrong. They get accused of stealing jobs... do folks think that foreign workers are only to found in low-paid manual labour? Many of those people are very highly educated and find work because companies and governments need them to fill voids.
One could write all night about this topic, but in the end, logic has little to do with emotion, fear and basic ignorance and when that is cynically exploited by politicians pandering to said fears, sense loses the argument. That is not to say that I don't understand the emotions that arise with every new temple or mosque that gets built in "our" notionally Christian country; the French understand that even better.
-
I don’t understand why the Brits have to make it all so complicated? Just crash out of EU and build the damn wall with Ireland. Done!
Wall with Ireland? Slobodan, we know all about sectarian warfare, murders and explosions. Staying in Europe is worth it if only to prevent that likelihood rearing its head yet again, and it certainly would, almost immediately. Warning rumblings have already been sounded.
-
... I actually like the way this pans out...
+1
-
... The EU should have moved to England immediately and help them solve the problems and, if neccesary, accommodate the brexit, thereby showing the strength of cooperation. See what they do instead? ...
Check the speech Dr. Alice Weidel gave in the European Parliament, reflecting more or less the same sentiment:
https://www.facebook.com/1314407115329126/posts/1650688605034307?sfns=mo
-
In essence, the British migrant problem is not a new one from Europe, but a much older version. How ironic to watch some of those very new Britons condemn the possibility of others moving to Britain today...
Yes, the situation has meant that member states lose some autonomy, but so you do the moment you join any club that has rules, and without rules, the situation remains, literally, lawless, which is not good.
If your country consistently belonged in the top 10 wealthiest nations, guess what happens when you apply the principle of distribution of wealth with too many weaker member states? What happens is exactly what you see happening now where the average wage and pension will either no longer be indexed or will even be lowered, while the cost of living very apparently does not follow the trend. In fact, what we used to import cheaply from elsewhere, becomes equally expensive as the source countries become wealthier.
So, the middle class becomes slightly poorer, the struggle of the poor to make ends meet becomes more strenuous, and next you introduce refugees and migrants with EU mandated and EU subsidized pampering, literally taking away privileges from native citizens. (Reprioritizing social housing waiting lists, for example).
Then you ask "the average citizen" if they want to belong to the EU...
Germany, having failed at due diligence when spending billions, bankrupted an entire member state and insists on dismantling assets. Guess who now controls key trade routes into the EU? Guess what happens at the other, original "thriving" harbor cities in the EU? Meanwhile the average Greek goes under. Ask them how that EU membership is working out for them.
Add countries that are known for thriving corruption. Who really believes corruption was suddenly solved after generations and generations of it being the de facto standard trade method?
Take 9 wealthy nations and add a 10th weaker member, and the lot will probably get stronger.
Take 9 wealthy nations and add 16 unknowns, well...
But, oh wait, we'll give those 16 unknowns voting rights by size. Let's "ask" the average dutchy by referendum what they think of that. Oh, they disagree? Let's not ask them then, and by the way: the EU openly thinks that the dutch government isn't doing enough to take the official EU standpoint.
Yeah, that'll be the day: a government, a people's representative entity, telling me how to vote, and when we collectively vote differently, we're supposed to trust them to properly represent the will of the people back in the EU. The EU consistently ignores the signals that should tell them they are on the wrong track. Start doing something differently, or suffer desintegration.
Yeah, I love that Brexit referendum. It's like a big f*****g RED traffic light and the EU is merely speeding its way toward running it.
-
Of course the EU is far from perfect. But the early promoters of Brexit fed a bunch of lies and false promises to people. 3 years after, at least some voters have realized that they were lied to.
-
... But the early promoters of Brexit fed a bunch of lies and false promises to people...
You mean only the Leavers were allowed to speak?
-
You mean only the Leavers were allowed to speak?
Farage dominated the airspace as did the comically photogenic ragmop guy who has just had a haircut so as to look like a reasonable prospective leadership candidate... The printed press were all for leaving and you just need to think of Murdoch and revenge to figure some things out for youself, and the inherent danger in allowing your - prettty much uncontrolled - media to fall into the hands of foreign citizens with axes agleam.
But still, Oscar is right in that the internal machinations of Europe need cleaning up, as the lady in your link proclaimed. That's one thing, and might be achievable, but crashing out or leaving with a bad deal is still gonna be UK suicide, however you look at it. If Europe collapses, as in the aftermath of the war, southern Europe will become even more firmly Mafialand Inc. And that won't rest in Europe, by any means. There's much more at play here than the next five British years,
Rob
-
Brexit Party URL hijacked by pro-EU group because Nigel Farage forgot to register website.
thebrexitparty.com (https://thebrexitparty.com/)
-
Something to cheer up Rob ;)
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/11/referendum-result-overturned-due-poorly-informed-voters-9177073/
-
All those guns... if they all went off at once they could trigger a landslide result or even, given the place, an avalanche or three. Might get shot of Mary Poppins figures, though, proving there are bright sides to most things.
;-)
-
Couple of interesting talks.
The first is about social media's nefarious (and possibly illegal) effects on democracy generally with some specific references to Brexit: https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy (https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy).
The second is a radio interview with Irish Times columnist Fintan O'Toole from today's Sunday Edition on CBC Radio: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/how-the-state-of-self-pity-that-is-brexit-stemmed-from-britain-s-victory-in-ww-ii-1.5099101 (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/how-the-state-of-self-pity-that-is-brexit-stemmed-from-britain-s-victory-in-ww-ii-1.5099101).
-
Couple of interesting talks.
The first is about social media's nefarious (and possibly illegal) effects on democracy generally with some specific references to Brexit: https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy (https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy).
The second is a radio interview with Irish Times columnist Fintan O'Toole from today's Sunday Edition on CBC Radio: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/how-the-state-of-self-pity-that-is-brexit-stemmed-from-britain-s-victory-in-ww-ii-1.5099101 (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/how-the-state-of-self-pity-that-is-brexit-stemmed-from-britain-s-victory-in-ww-ii-1.5099101).
Thanks for the links; sent them on to a family member who is an ardent Brexiteer. Trouble is, that may prevent him from being able to watch and listen. Maybe all too late, but perhaps not.
Rob
-
Thanks for the links; sent them on to a family member who is an ardent Brexiteer. Trouble is, that may prevent him from being able to watch and listen. Maybe all too late, but perhaps not.
Rob
One thing that I wasn't aware of that came up in the 2nd interview with O'Toole was the young/old divide in the referendum. The people who voted for it would not be alive to suffer the consequences. Yet another thing wrong with 50% + 1 decisions on matters of this importance.
-
...The people who voted for it would not be alive to suffer the consequences...
Which was exactly the same in the first referendum. So?
Besides, the immutable law of nature: everyone alive will become old. That’s the stage when most who had at least two brain cells to begin with will become wiser.
-
Which was exactly the same in the first referendum. So?
Besides, the immutable law of nature: everyone alive will become old. That’s the stage when most who had at least two brain cells to begin with will become wiser.
There has only been one referendum on this, Slobodan.
The old, in this case, are from a generation (mine) that didn't always know its ass from its elbow. That many subsequent ones don't either isn't the point. The point is that those with any worthwhile prospects i.e. the better educated or just naturally bright, instantly recognised the massive advantages to having a wider space in which to travel and work if they felt like it, as of right. Consider your own position in the US of A: you need to get green cards etc. if you come from another nation and want to settle and work. In Europe, the status quo of Brits was far different and we could come and go as we saw fit. You don't think that was a better deal for us?
Regarding the mindset of many of the older people: even the unions were against leaving because the guys who run them are, whatever else they may be, not unaware of which side of the bread lies the butter. If they back leaving and in a few years jobs vanish, who gets blamed, whose factory and job closes? I think the rabid commies who held some of those key jobs a few decades ago have mostly died off; instead, a few fossils are now in full-time politics. Not all old people are fortunate enough to carry on playing the game of life with a full deck of cards; and that problem doesn't discriminate between left, right, dumb or brilliant. Anyway, you can't expect the old guys who spend all day and their pensions in workingmen's clubs in some depressing old town in northern England either to know or care about job opportunities for young Brits in Europe, nor of the job prospects being torn up and chucked abroad for those in the money businesses in the hated and far more rich south of England and, especially, the City. According to some people in northern Engand, as with many Scot Nats, the south "stole our wealth" which usually turns out to mean that the "stolen" northern companies sold out to conglomeratesi in England and abroad. That's not theft: that's business, and often the result of having to deal with local bloodymindedness that couldn't see the wood for the trees.
As for the reverse migratory movements, we depend on them at both high and lower levels: the poor folks coming in do work our "proud" bunch won't touch, and the catering industry and the health services depend on them to fill gaps both in the supply of nurses and hotel/restaurant gigs. Farmers, too, depend on such migrant workers and for much the same reasons as everywhere else. At the other end of the telescope, the health industry makes huge use of trained specialists from abroad. So do our engineering and science industries. Yes, our universities produce thousands of highly educated folks, but many say thanks, and sod off to better-paying work abroad, and who can really blame them? Or so my doctor granddaughter tells me from her experiences in employment in hospitals. As for business, it's become more multicoloured than ever before with the world living in London and making and spending lots. So, once we throw out the French and the Italians, the Arabs and the Asians, do we turn upon the Americans too because they are foreigners eating our lunch?
It was a movement built upon ignorance, hatred and lies, and the deadly sickness of apathy. That's why we face this shit today.
-
There has only been one referendum on this...
Two: one in and one out.
-
The most recent referendum was marred by electoral fraud. Had the result been binding on Parliament, it would have been ruled illegal & would have had to be either run again or the result put to one side. As it is, Parliament feels bound to abide by the result for fear of right-wing extremists killing more MPs & some general disorder and the rest of us look set to suffer the consequences.
-
Two: one in and one out.
Artful Dodger comes to mind...
:-)
-
The most recent referendum was marred by electoral fraud. Had the result been binding on Parliament, it would have been ruled illegal & would have had to be either run again or the result put to one side. As it is, Parliament feels bound to abide by the result for fear of right-wing extremists killing more MPs & some general disorder and the rest of us look set to suffer the consequences.
The thing is, who would ever have imagined that Britain would become a nation where there could be fear of political assassinations? From a place with a highly stable society, if one of an extreme (sometimes) range of views, murder was not seriously considered a likelihood; it was something that happened across the water or here, perpetrated by people from over there.
How thin the skin of civilisation.
How dangerous the uncontrolled state of social media.
:-(
-
... Parliament feels bound to abide by the result for fear of right-wing extremists killing more MPs ...
You guys can't be serious!? The whole British parliament can't vote in fear of assassinations!? A clear case of BDS (Brexit Derangement Syndrome)?
-
You guys can't be serious!? The whole British parliament can't vote in fear of assassinations!? A clear case of BDS (Brexit Derangement Syndrome)?
But it did and does vote; the problem is that it doesn't agree on much beyond the fact that leaving the Community without a deal is the worst option in a scenario where the only good option is to cancel the entire mess and say enough! No way will we, as a responosible government and opposition, participate in bringing about aided suicide.
A lady MP has already been murdered by a Brexiteer nutcase. These guys can perhaps imagine themselves doing something patriotic - who can tell?
-
As it is, Parliament feels bound to abide by the result for fear of right-wing extremists killing more MPs & some general disorder and the rest of us look set to suffer the consequences.
The vast majority of reported death threats are made by left-wing members of the Labour Party, mostly against the Labour Party's own MPs and in particular against those who are Jewish and female.
Jeremy
-
The vast majority of reported death threats are made by left-wing members of the Labour Party, mostly against the Labour Party's own MPs and in particular against those who are Jewish and female.
Jeremy
But you can be as much a right- as a left-wing Brexiteer maniac; then you have new events in N. Ireland showing their ugly face yet again, none of which I think is incidental to the opportunity the excited times of the entire Brexit debacle gives all the unconstrained nut jobs amongst us to breath deeply and do something, anything they want to do. Moods are infectious.
Rob
-
The vast majority of reported death threats are made by left-wing members of the Labour Party, mostly against the Labour Party's own MPs and in particular against those who are Jewish and female.
Two in particular, Luciana Berger and Margaret Hodge. There is no question that there is a vile and despicable surge in anti-semitism throughout the UK, but that is not the exclusive domain of the Labour Party.
The internet troll jailed for his abusive tweets against Berger was a member of the ineo-Nazi Nactional Action organisation. Following the verdict, she instantly became a target for anti-Semitic neo-Nazi trolls, with the police telling her that she had received 2,500 “hate messages” in just three days at the height of the attacks.
Jo Cox MP was murdered in 2016 by another right wing extremist, who shot thrice and stabbed her fifteen times shouting “Britain first, this is for Britain”. Not exactly Labour Party manifesto.
I'm not aware that anti-semitism is the exclusive domain (of one part) of the Labour party. Between the extremists in the Conservative party and the splinter groups of UKIP , the BNP and the EDL I'd surmise that the racist element is both prevalent and omnipresent.
(https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2016/12/National-Action-e1481546250419-640x400.jpg)
(Members of the UK’s neo-Nazi National Action group rally in York, June 9, 2016)
-
... Jo Cox MP was murdered in 2016 by another right wing extremist, who shot thrice and stabbed her fifteen times shouting “Britain first, this is for Britain”. Not exactly Labour Party manifesto....
And an individual with a certified history of mental illness.
-
And an individual with a certified history of mental illness.
I for one am glad they got a reprieve until October 31st. Brexit has been out of the news since the extension was announced.
-
There is no question that there is a vile and despicable surge in anti-semitism throughout the UK, but that is not the exclusive domain of the Labour Party.
I didn't suggest that it was. It just happens to be particularly prevalent in that party, perhaps because the underlying sentiment is shared by its leader.
Jeremy
-
And an individual with a certified history of mental illness.
In a word, poppycock.
After his arrest, he was examined by a psychiatrist who could find no evidence that his mental health was so poor that he was not responsible for his actions. He was essentially a sane man and was tried as such.
On 18 June 2016, asked to confirm his name in Westminster Magistrates' Court, Mair said, "My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain". His lawyers said there was no indication of how he would plead. Mair was remanded in custody and the magistrate suggested he was seen by a psychiatrist. At a September 2016 hearing, Mair's counsel said they would not advance a diminished responsibility argument.
Mair's trial began at the Old Bailey on 14 November 2016. He made no attempt to defend himself. Witnesses testified that during the attack, Mair had cried out "This is for Britain", "keep Britain independent", and "Put Britain first". On 23 November 2016, the jury took about 90 minutes to convict Mair of Cox's murder, The same day, Mair was sentenced to life imprisonment; the judge said he had no doubt Mair murdered Cox to advance a political, racial, and ideological cause—that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism most associated with Nazism and its modern forms. This made the case exceptionally serious; accordingly the judge imposed a whole life term, meaning Mair will never be eligible for parole.
Mair had links to British and American far-right political groups including the National Front (NF), the United States-based neo-Nazi organisation National Vanguard (successor to the defunct National Alliance) and the English Defence League (EDL) ... In his home were found Nazi regalia, far-right books, and information on the construction of bombs. He had searched the internet for information about the British National Party (BNP), South African apartheid, the Ku Klux Klan, prominent Jewish people, matricide, white supremacism/nationalism, Nazism/Nazi Party, SS/Waffen SS, Israel, mass shootings, serial killers, and the Norwegian far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik (about whose case he collected newspaper clippings). He also owned Nazi iconography and books and films related to the Nazis
-
In a word, poppycock.
After his arrest, he was examined by a psychiatrist who could find no evidence that his mental health was so poor that he was not responsible for his actions. He was essentially a sane man and was tried as such.
The news article I read about the case stated what I stated above (history of mental illness). If they were wrong, I was wrong.
However, there is a clear distinction between pleading insanity as a legal defense and suffering from mental illnesses. Most people that subscribe to that level of extreme views probably are mentally unstable to begin with, though not to the level to successfully plead legal insanity.
-
Wholly aside from the byzantine politics of Brexit, which are impenetrable to an outsider (at least, to this outsider), it seems to me the Brits had a rather desirable arrangement with respect to the European Union. They didn't join the euro zone, which always struck me as a dubious idea—does any country really benefit from the common currency other than Germany?—and opted out of the Schengen Agreement, which undermines reasonable attempts at border and customs control. At the same time, their businesses and consumers got all the benefits of the free-trade area and their citizens had the same rights as those of other member states to live and work anywhere in the EU.
-
Wholly aside from the byzantine politics of Brexit, which are impenetrable to an outsider (at least, to this outsider), it seems to me the Brits had a rather desirable arrangement with respect to the European Union. They didn't join the euro zone, which always struck me as a dubious idea—does any country really benefit from the common currency other than Germany?—and opted out of the Schengen Agreement, which undermines reasonable attempts at border and customs control. At the same time, their businesses and consumers got all the benefits of the free-trade area and their citizens had the same rights as those of other member states to live and work anywhere in the EU.
As far as I can tell, Brexit movement is principally about immigration and foreign workers.
-
And an individual with a certified history of mental illness.
In a word, poppycock.
After his arrest, he was examined by a psychiatrist who could find no evidence that his mental health was so poor that he was not responsible for his actions. He was essentially a sane man and was tried as such.
It is seldom wise to attempt to summarise complex issues in a single word. There is an enormous difference between some form of of mental illness and the extremely high threshold of being declared unfit to plead.
Jeremy
-
Wholly aside from the byzantine politics of Brexit, which are impenetrable to an outsider (at least, to this outsider), it seems to me the Brits had a rather desirable arrangement with respect to the European Union. They didn't join the euro zone, which always struck me as a dubious idea—does any country really benefit from the common currency other than Germany?—and opted out of the Schengen Agreement, which undermines reasonable attempts at border and customs control. At the same time, their businesses and consumers got all the benefits of the free-trade area and their citizens had the same rights as those of other member states to live and work anywhere in the EU.
Absolutely; it was a nostalic madness.
Has not happened yet - and as innocents discover Jacob Rees-Mogg, a prime promoter of Brexit, has moved his assets to Ireland - to keep them within the Union and be safe - the penny may drop, but I wouldn't bet on it. We are not dealing with the rational here.
-
... their citizens had the same rights as those of other member states to live and work anywhere in the EU.
Is there a statistic on that? How many Brits left and how many foreigners came?*
* With the possible inclusion of the gazzilions in Calais waiting to cross the Channel, after already having passed through a dozen other wealthy E.U. nations. What’s is it? The famed British cuisine? Glorious weather?
-
Is there a statistic on that? 1, How many Brits left and how many foreigners came?*
* With the possible inclusion of the gazzilions in Calais waiting to cross the Channel, after already having passed through a dozen other wealthy E.U. nations. 2, What’s is it? The famed British cuisine? Glorious weather?
1. It doesn't matter how many left or did not; the entire point is about the right to do so if you feel like it. It's about the freedom of the individual to make that call. Americans, both new or old, should appreciate that concept more than most people. Even the gunslingers cite it as the bodies fall.
2. I think there are two main parts, but as I'm not of the same origins, there could well be distinct lures in the UK of which I am not aware.
Those two of which I am apprised might be: (a) the relative ease in the UK for certain factions to insinuate themelves into the state's welfare systems; (b) the fact that unlike in most European lands, the Brits are shocked at the very idea of identity cards, thought they proudly carry a driving licence [since living in Spain I am obliged, as is everyone else, to carry one at all times; it, along with my medical card and driving permit (all three with snap included), has proved its worth in gold far more often than any golden Amex card I do not own might have. But such conveniences are an obvious threat to your freedom.].
A country that has decided largely to oblige its police forces to overlook the very ethnicities that might have members with a desire to blow the indigenous whites to smithereens, on the grounds of "fairness" and discrimination, is not far removed from institutional madness. This latter provides the ease with which people can simply disappear within the diaspora never to be found or recorded again. Once living safely within you ethnic ghetto, who's gonna blow your cover? If you don't even have to produce any ID to the police in suspicious circumstances, you have got it made, no?
When I can, I look for the Spanish newspaper Ultima Hora, not because it's a particularly edifying read (it would probably go right over the top of my head if it were), but for the short columns from a writer called Enrique Lázaro, who has a particular talent for the dry, clever yet simple-sounding mickey-take. Today, his theme was about tone, as in conversation/communication. He writes that it doesn't matter what you say or write, because nobody listens to you nor reads the words, but that what is all important is the tone in which you express what you express. How true.
Walking through the stuff on the hard at the local marina about an hour or two ago, I saw an obstruction that was simply irresistible, so I tumbed head over heels over it. It was a small mast. As I picked myself up, a little crowd of people working on the vessels gathered about the scene - made it, in fact - and one, a lady walking with her husband, told me that one has to be very careful in such places because it is terribly easy to trip... I could only agree, but I hope that I did so using the right tone.
Fortunately, the only damage was to my pride - not that there's much left by now - and the creation of a nice skinless zone on my left palm; this I doused with chemist's alcohol when I got home, thus enjoying the pleasures of a really high burn, hopefully fatal to marina germs. My Levi's and a windcheater are now in the washing machine, where I hope they discard the fine cement colour that was never a part of the original design. Hard to get bored as you grow old.
;-)
-
1. It doesn't matter how many left or did not; the entire point is about the right to do so if you feel like it. It's about the freedom of the individual to make that call...
Ah, the brave new world without borders. Not there yet, though.
By the way, would you extend the same right to own and carry a gun if one feels like it?
-
Ah, the brave new world without borders. Not there yet, though.
By the way, would you extend the same right to own and carry a gun if one feels like it?
1. I do not at all advocate a world entirely free of borders; I vote for one where those entitled to cross them can, and can continue to do that. There are those I would never permit to enter my country of birth. However, I don't think you were suggesting that I do hold that totally open-border idea.
2. I would certainly grant myself the right to carry a small pistol because I know myself very well, and random violence has never been my thing. However, that should still be a right based on passing stringent tests, both psychological as well as physical: seeing the right target strikes me as important. Based on my recent public performance, perhaps just as well I do not bear arms. I might have suffered a larger hole than the one in my hand, had something been fired by accidental knock - if that's really possible. Self-defence is one thing, but armaments capable of killing dozens in one continuous burst seem rather over the top, to say the very least. Those should remain with the military or security forces.
:-)
-
Wholly aside from the byzantine politics of Brexit, which are impenetrable to an outsider (at least, to this outsider), it seems to me the Brits had a rather desirable arrangement with respect to the European Union. They didn't join the euro zone, which always struck me as a dubious idea—does any country really benefit from the common currency other than Germany?—and opted out of the Schengen Agreement, which undermines reasonable attempts at border and customs control. At the same time, their businesses and consumers got all the benefits of the free-trade area and their citizens had the same rights as those of other member states to live and work anywhere in the EU.
Of course - the UK got the Germany+ deal. But Brexit has never been about rationality - it is about people being left behind and misunderstanding or misdiagnosing the reasons for that. Stir in the usual demagogues and pocket-liners, along with a little help from the Kremlin, and there you have it.
-
it is about people being left behind and misunderstanding or misdiagnosing the reasons for that. Stir in the usual demagogues and pocket-liners, along with a little help from the Kremlin, and there you have it.
Yes, we're quite familiar with that cluster of phenomena on this side of the Atlantic.
-
Of course - the UK got the Germany+ deal. But Brexit has never been about rationality - it is about people being left behind and misunderstanding or misdiagnosing the reasons for that. Stir in the usual demagogues and pocket-liners, along with a little help from the Kremlin, and there you have it.
Good point. I'd say the two-party system is also part of the problem with both the main UK parties apparently determined to hang on to the old system - which means going for Brexit - regardless of whether it's in the national interest. They know Brexit is not in the national interest but they also know that showing some principles and taking a stand on it would mean unpopularity shock horror.
The recent Extinction Rebellion protests in London are an optimistic sign, though. Not only does it suggest that things have already moved on from 2016 but it also suggests that the young are determined to ignore dim, inflexible nationalist politicians and their crooked circles, instead cutting straight to the chase. Nationalist demagogues and crooks of the Brexit variety aren't going to stop the planet choking itself.
-
Good point. I'd say the two-party system is also part of the problem with both the main UK parties apparently determined to hang on to the old system - which means going for Brexit - regardless of whether it's in the national interest. They know Brexit is not in the national interest but they also know that showing some principles and taking a stand on it would mean unpopularity shock horror.
The recent Extinction Rebellion protests in London are an optimistic sign, though. Not only does it suggest that things have already moved on from 2016 but it also suggests that the young are determined to ignore dim, inflexible nationalist politicians and their crooked circles, instead cutting straight to the chase. Nationalist demagogues and crooks of the Brexit variety aren't going to stop the planet choking itself.
But what do you do about the 4% more Brexiteers who think getting choked to death is all part of artificial respiration and resuscitation?
-
Some Aussie common sense and who is the "they" that are knowing that Brexit is not in the National Interest? :P ::) ??? >:(
https://www.facebook.com/PetaCredlin/videos/280719305930320/?v=280719305930320
-
Some Aussie common sense and who is the "they" that are knowing that Brexit is not in the National Interest? :P ::) ??? >:(
https://www.facebook.com/PetaCredlin/videos/280719305930320/?v=280719305930320
Excellent! Yes, indeed, No Deal and move on!
-
But what do you do about the 4% more Brexiteers who think getting choked to death is all part of artificial respiration and resuscitation?
Lol. The young don’t want the future the old envision for them. They are quite right, especially when the young in this case means anyone under 45 or so. We’re not talking about a few teens here. Brexit has complex causes but it’s a good example of how a built-in majority of oldies is now a problem for Western democracies locked into two-party systems. For example, whenever Boris Johnson stands up, remember that he doesn’t have to convince you or I to inch nearer to power by neutralising T May. He has to convince enough members of the Conservative Party at their little internal votes and resolutions, a deeply unappealing bunch of often wealthy right-wingers with an average age of more than 70, I believe. Oldies again. I am hoping that Extinction Rebellion here and similar movements elsewhere turn out to be like the anti-war protests of the Sixties - a watershed moment too big to ignore.
-
Excellent! Yes, indeed, No Deal and move on!
Nice speech badly read.
Buy hey from an upside-down position, you're bound not to get things right.
In essence, leave the club but expect to use the swimming pool, carpark and bar. Funny how the speech sounds exactly as if written by the Victorians in the Conservative party. As for the bit about Ireland, why does Trump want to reinforce his borders with Mexico? For exactly the same reasons that Europe would have to between Ireland and Northern Ireland: two separate countries with Ireland bound by European concerns as well, and, silently, the UK fear of turning NI into a smugglers' paradise and terrorist breeding ground with far greater support for that madness reborn.
So, what do you imagine is in it for Australia?
Look in that reader's eyes and tell me you see something.
Rob
-
Look in that reader's eyes and tell me you see something.
Funny line.
-
Here is a metaphor for Brexit:
You know when someone threatens to jump from a tall building but does nothing for too long, the crowd gets bored and starts chanting: "Jump, jump, jump!"
;)
-
Here is a metaphor for Brexit:
You know when someone threatens to jump from a tall building but does nothing for too long, the crowd gets bored and starts chanting: "Jump, jump, jump!"
;)
In this case, the crowd doesn't matter. What matters is the person (nation) that's been shoved up there for no good reason.
:-)
-
And then someone else finds that person on the pavement as he mutters, "I managed to grab onto the kerbstone, just in time ...".
Cheers,
Bart
Good one; then who comes out and cleans the mess? Maybe Mr Trump after he's shone up his rust belts?
-
TBH I was a little surprised that political discussion tolerated on this forum (religion and sex next I hope 8)) and while I had seen a post of someone's opinion about Brexit some time ago I decided not to participate as this sort of thing invariably ends up in tears.
Still, opinion has been expressed and so feel that it is only right and fair that I express my opinion which seems to be in opposition to others views here.
Maybe my opinion would be different if I was not a British citizen living in Britain. For instance, an expat living in a country that is currently part of the EU or any other individual from any country outside of Britain. It is certainly feasible that living in a country that wanted to remain in the EU could colour my views.
As to Australia making comment then how is this any different to the above?
As far as Ireland goes this should really be an Irish decision to enforce a hard border or not. What I can say is that as a Brit who has worked from time to time in Northern Ireland during and after the troubles if a hard wall is built it will come down if it is the will of a section of the population.
Like it or not we are supposed to be living in a democracy. The population of Great Britain is said to be around 65 million. Of this 46,500,001 (this is accurate as I was the ,001 ;D) were registered voters. Total votes cast said to be 33,577,342 representing 72.21% of those allowed to vote
So we as a democratic country had a free vote and voted to leave. None of this helped by selfish (or according to some cowardly) prime minister that deserted his post representing the people because we did not agree with him urging us to stay - It's my game and I am taking my ball home - a bloody disgrace! Leaving us with a woman that also wanted to remain but at least had the balls to attempt to represent the democratic vote.
Some argue by a small majority of just less than 4% – so what!
Where and when was it stated that the majority had to reach a certain percentage?
Want another referendum then what rules need be applied?
Total number of voters must exceed 90% of the voting public – more or less than this?
What must the percentage margin be before the vote could be ratified, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, more?
What should happen when the vote does not go your or my way?
Keep on bleating until such time as a new referendum conducted?
or
Accept the will of the majority?
-
...lHe has Nigel Farage to do his stirring in the UK, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Marie Le Pen in France, etc.
Divide and conquer ...
They are actually uniting, didn’t you hear?
-
Populism only thrives if there is someone else to blame, and it crumbles into a mess when they become too powerful themselves with nobody to blame but their own policies. Bannon knows that, and that's the kind of chaos he is after.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Movement_(populist_group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Movement_(populist_group))
Cheers,
Bart
Well said. These people pop up from time to time throughout history. They create utter chaos then they disappear. Bannon, Farage and co are a perfect fit for the breed. There won’t be any achievements, no legacy or political parties after they’ve vanished, just the bill for the damage.
-
TBH I was a little surprised that political discussion tolerated on this forum (religion and sex next I hope 8)) and while I had seen a post of someone's opinion about Brexit some time ago I decided not to participate as this sort of thing invariably ends up in tears.
Still, opinion has been expressed and so feel that it is only right and fair that I express my opinion which seems to be in opposition to others views here.
Maybe my opinion would be different if I was not a British citizen living in Britain. For instance, an expat living in a country that is currently part of the EU or any other individual from any country outside of Britain. It is certainly feasible that living in a country that wanted to remain in the EU could colour my views.
As to Australia making comment then how is this any different to the above?
As far as Ireland goes this should really be an Irish decision to enforce a hard border or not. What I can say is that as a Brit who has worked from time to time in Northern Ireland during and after the troubles if a hard wall is built it will come down if it is the will of a section of the population.
Like it or not we are supposed to be living in a democracy. The population of Great Britain is said to be around 65 million. Of this 46,500,001 (this is accurate as I was the ,001 ;D) were registered voters. Total votes cast said to be 33,577,342 representing 72.21% of those allowed to vote
So we as a democratic country had a free vote and voted to leave. None of this helped by selfish (or according to some cowardly) prime minister that deserted his post representing the people because we did not agree with him urging us to stay - It's my game and I am taking my ball home - a bloody disgrace! Leaving us with a woman that also wanted to remain but at least had the balls to attempt to represent the democratic vote.
Some argue by a small majority of just less than 4% – so what!
Where and when was it stated that the majority had to reach a certain percentage?
Want another referendum then what rules need be applied?
Total number of voters must exceed 90% of the voting public – more or less than this?
What must the percentage margin be before the vote could be ratified, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, more?
What should happen when the vote does not go your or my way?
Keep on bleating until such time as a new referendum conducted?
or
Accept the will of the majority?
I think it's pretty self-evident from what has happened since the referendum that things are not as clear-cut as you state. Leaving aside all the comments from ex-pats and Australians, is there any indication that the British themselves have a good handle on the situation?
-
I think it's pretty self-evident from what has happened since the referendum that things are not as clear-cut as you state. Leaving aside all the comments from ex-pats and Australians, is there any indication that the British themselves have a good handle on the situation?
What is self evident is political obfuscation, avoidance and patronisation and maybe even fear for some political has beens. What we did witness was a kind of feeding frenzy at the first signs of potential weakness of the leader of the pack with pack members struggling to gain power and bring the leader down. And of course the expected rhetoric from the opposition. All of this serving to distract from the will of the populace
I believe the British do have a good handle on the situation and this is the second time we have voted stay or leave the first being 1975 (2+ years after joining) resulting in a stay vote of 67%. This time with much longer experience the vote went the other way and needs to be honoured to restore at least some faith in the political system and democracy
It is a great shame that the remoaners feel they have to resort to calling out racism or claiming that the public do not understand or are just ignorant of the facts. Or try and offer a discriminatory ageist rant - as an old fart (over 50) I object to that in particular ;)
It is also self evident that the Eurocrats are more than a little scared that Britain leaving without severe penalties being applied may encourage others to follow a similar route - where and how would they earn their crust is bound to be a huge concern.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Movement_(populist_group)
As of when has Wikipedia become an arbiter of truth and objectivity? An article written from a left-wing perspective, like the one above, certainly isn’t.
-
... It is a great shame that the remoaners feel they have to resort to calling out racism or claiming that the public do not understand or are just ignorant of the facts. Or try and offer a discriminatory ageist rant - as an old fart (over 50) I object to that in particular ;)...
;D
Brilliant term, whoever invented it.
-
From the horse's mouth then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVArY-ZxD_Y
From the comments section ;)
-
What is self evident is political obfuscation, avoidance and patronisation and maybe even fear for some political has beens. What we did witness was a kind of feeding frenzy at the first signs of potential weakness of the leader of the pack with pack members struggling to gain power and bring the leader down. And of course the expected rhetoric from the opposition. All of this serving to distract from the will of the populace
I believe the British do have a good handle on the situation and this is the second time we have voted stay or leave the first being 1975 (2+ years after joining) resulting in a stay vote of 67%. This time with much longer experience the vote went the other way and needs to be honoured to restore at least some faith in the political system and democracy
It is a great shame that the remoaners feel they have to resort to calling out racism or claiming that the public do not understand or are just ignorant of the facts. Or try and offer a discriminatory ageist rant - as an old fart (over 50) I object to that in particular ;)
It is also self evident that the Eurocrats are more than a little scared that Britain leaving without severe penalties being applied may encourage others to follow a similar route - where and how would they earn their crust is bound to be a huge concern.
If everything is so clear, shouldn't they have come up with a exit deal by now?
-
If everything is so clear, shouldn't they have come up with a exit deal by now?
It takes two sides to make a deal. Perhaps the reason is that the EU, and in particular France, have decided not to enter into any semi-reasonable deal to avoid others following our course. Punishment pour encourager les autres.
Jeremy
-
TBH I was a little surprised that political discussion tolerated on this forum (religion and sex next I hope 8))
I've never banned discussions of either topic: I've never felt the need, as there haven't been any of any significance.
Jeremy
-
The population of Great Britain is said to be around 65 million.
So just over a quarter of the population wanted to leave then. Not really a convincing majority really.
Also there are millions of UK citizens living outside the UK for whom brexit may make significant differences to their lives weren't eligible to vote.
None of this helped by selfish (or according to some cowardly) prime minister that deserted his post representing the people because we did not agree with him urging us to stay
In many ways Cameron quitting was the honourable thing to do. He didn't think leaving was good for the UK, neither did his government, the opposition or the civil service.
This leads us to a ridiculous aspect of the referendum. The organisation campaigning to leave had no power to implement it and never had any cohesive plan of how we'd leave or on what terms. They made outrageous claims and lied to try to sway gulible voters.
Never had a pro-brexit party managed to get more than a single MP elected.
Where and when was it stated that the majority had to reach a certain percentage?
That a simple first past the post result was a 'result' is one of the key reasons why the referendum was such a disaster.
If you manage to have a reasoned discussion with a pro-brexit supporter they'll always agree that leaving the EU is far more momentous decision than a general election. If you then suggest that for it to carried out it should need the same strength of opinion as calling an out of routine general election (ie a super majority of two thirds of votes cast) the discussion dies.
Then add that the UK's supreme court ruled that the proven illegalities would have made the referendum void if it had been mandatory.
-
It takes two sides to make a deal. Perhaps the reason is that the EU, and in particular France, have decided not to enter into any semi-reasonable deal to avoid others following our course. Punishment pour encourager les autres.
Jeremy
Seems to be a fair assessment as a semi reasonable deal may well cause encouragement.
-
So just over a quarter of the population wanted to leave then. Not really a convincing majority really.
Also there are millions of UK citizens living outside the UK for whom brexit may make significant differences to their lives weren't eligible to vote.
No, that is missing the point that the vote was limited to those legally entitled I.e registered and on the electoral roll. These would have to be at or above voting age, with full British citizenship, which at 70% of the population represents a fairly convincing majority for most. So really the only telling statistic is that 28% of the population able to legally vote did not deem the EU debacle worth voting on. Thereby leaving the remaining 72% with the choice, that choice clear fir all to see. Even a landslide vote, say 67% to leave would still not have satisfied the remoaners as will always be the case.
It is true that there are many U.K. citizens living outside the U.K. that are not entitled to vote, however there is good reason to draw up limits. A court challenge by two expats lead to a ruling by the courts of a cut off period with the judges stating “extended residence abroad might indicate a weakening of ties with the United Kingdom”. However it is my understanding that the vote did extend to U.K. nationals living abroad who have been on the electoral register in the last 15 years.
In many ways Cameron quitting was the honourable thing to do. He didn't think leaving was good for the UK, neither did his government, the opposition or the civil service.
In many ways a man of honesty and integrity would have stayed the course and perhaps after voicing his disappointment at his view being overuled would have honoured his commitment to the country that had faith to vote him in. It is not “his” government,it is OURS.
I do agree that this whole thing has been handled poorly and should have been resolved by now. The culprits being those jostling fir power and money over the best interest of the U.K. or their own personal interest as member EU representatives.
Due to intransigence on all sides I fear we may be heading for a No Deal scenario
-
So just over a quarter of the population wanted to leave then. Not really a convincing majority really.
Also there are millions of UK citizens living outside the UK for whom brexit may make significant differences to their lives weren't eligible to vote.
In many ways Cameron quitting was the honourable thing to do. He didn't think leaving was good for the UK, neither did his government, the opposition or the civil service.
This leads us to a ridiculous aspect of the referendum. The organisation campaigning to leave had no power to implement it and never had any cohesive plan of how we'd leave or on what terms. They made outrageous claims and lied to try to sway gulible voters.
Never had a pro-brexit party managed to get more than a single MP elected.
That a simple first past the post result was a 'result' is one of the key reasons why the referendum was such a disaster.
If you manage to have a reasoned discussion with a pro-brexit supporter they'll always agree that leaving the EU is far more momentous decision than a general election. If you then suggest that for it to carried out it should need the same strength of opinion as calling an out of routine general election (ie a super majority of two thirds of votes cast) the discussion dies.
Then add that the UK's supreme court ruled that the proven illegalities would have made the referendum void if it had been mandatory.
That's best, cool and unemotional statement so far.
That the thing was conducted under information that was false, known to be false when offered, yet those who swallowed it hook, line and sinker, can't accept that truth even today when it stares them in the face.
The economy, some claim, didn't fall off any cliff; of course not, we are still in that union. The cliff looms if/when we are over it.
Reduced to the most simple of terms: being the little guy in this world is never a good idea. We are a great(ish) economy precisely because of our markets within the union. Does anyone imagine Oz, NZ, India et al. have short memories?
How innocent yet dangerous some people are with their beliefs in shaking international hands, air-kissing and being back to the old days... I know yachties who found themselves down in the southern waters and their reports of love for the Poms are very different to fond imaginings.
Rob
-
It takes two sides to make a deal. Perhaps the reason is that the EU, and in particular France, have decided not to enter into any semi-reasonable deal to avoid others following our course. Punishment pour encourager les autres.
Jeremy
I was thinking more of the failure to achieve agreement about a deal within the British parliament itself. Haven't there been 3 votes so far (or was it only 2)? I've kind of lost track.
I think that the overall confusion and parliamentary failures to proceed are a measure of how complex an issue this is, which argues against making a go/nogo decision based on a 50% + 1 referendum whose conduct was tainted by Facebook and other social media propaganda. On the face of it, that interference casts some doubt on the outcome, making it a little risky to simply proceed. Wouldn't sober second thought be in everyone's interests? The fates of millions of people are at stake and the ramifications will show themselves over more than one generation. What exactly is the rush?
-
Even a landslide vote, say 67% to leave would still not have satisfied the remoaners as will always be the case.
If you want a reasoned, respectful debate you'll need to stop using derogatory language about people whose opinions differ to your own.
No one would have had grounds to disagree if the referendum had a convincing majority, but it simply didn't.
Add to that the leave campaign was illegally funded and that illegality is quite likely to have swung enough people to change the result.*
I fail to understand why many more people aren't complaining about how foreign powers might have attacked our democracy through the use of social media and won**. Probably because that attack is continuing***
I do agree that this whole thing has been handled poorly and should have been resolved by now. The culprits being those jostling fir power and money over the best interest of the U.K. or their own personal interest as member EU representatives.
No. The problem lies in that the very question asked was unspecific and too general in nature and there was no government will to implement it.
No one in power seriously thought the country would ever be foolhardy enough to risk a leave vote.****
Due to intransigence on all sides I fear we may be heading for a No Deal scenario
I think you're right to fear the prospect of no deal. I've not read of a single credible suggestion that it will be anything other than a major damaging problem for the UK.
However we're continually told that this was the 'will of the people', even though many in the leave campaign said it would never be a risk.
I've still not read or heard of any overall benefit to the UK from leaving the EU that stands any sort of scrutiny.
The EU is far from a prefect organisation, but we're far better off staying and benefiting from being within and maintaining our influence and ability to influence it's actions.
* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html
** https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy#t-472328
*** https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexspence/hard-brexit-dark-money-links-between-these-secretive
**** https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/finan-otoole-and-james-obrien-on-brexit-1-5789169
-
... I fail to understand why many more people aren't complaining about how foreign powers might have attacked our democracy through the use of social media and won...
;D ;D ;D
Trump/Brexit Derangement Syndrome at its best (worst?). Sooooo easy to blame somebody else instead of admitting that people wanted what they voted for.
-
That's best, cool and unemotional statement so far...
Says an unbiased expat, with a vested interest.
Rob, my dear friend, we understand that you are reasoning from your personal perspective. It is ok. We understand. I would probably be the same. Rooting for my own team, no matter what. Being a loyal fan. But you can't count on others to take that position as objective, "cool and unemotional."
-
So just over a quarter of the population wanted to leave then. Not really a convincing majority really...
As in any other democratic election, what counts is the majority of those who decided to vote. 4% difference is quite a majority in today's democracies, where elections are often decided close to 50% +1 vote.
... This leads us to a ridiculous aspect of the referendum... They made outrageous claims and lied to try to sway gullible voters...
Another ridiculous assertion. Boths sides had a chance to make outrageous claims and sway gullible voters, or refute them.
... (ie a super majority of two thirds of votes cast) ...
The first referendum, in 1975, did not have that requirement either. I agree, in principle, that such critical decisions deserve a 2/3 majority. However, it should have been done so for both referendums, or, at least, proposed prior to the second one.
-
If you want a reasoned, respectful debate you'll need to stop using derogatory language about people whose opinions differ to your own.
Right back at ya!
If you manage to have a reasoned discussion with a pro-brexit supporter they'll always agree that leaving the EU is far more momentous decision than a general election
You think it is correct to make what you see as witty although certainly snide comments is OK but others cannot?
You think it correct to call those that do not agree with you "gullible"
-
Says an unbiased expat, with a vested interest.
Rob, my dear friend, we understand that you are reasoning from your personal perspective. It is ok. We understand. I would probably be the same. Rooting for my own team, no matter what. Being a loyal fan. But you can't count on others to take that position as objective, "cool and unemotional."
Well said
-
As in any other democratic election, what counts is the majority of those who decided to vote. 4% difference is quite a majority in today's democracies, where elections are often decided close to 50% +1 vote.
Another ridiculous assertion. Boths sides had a chance to make outrageous claims and sway gullible voters, or refute them.
The first referendum, in 1975, did not have that requirement either. I agree, in principle, that such critical decisions deserve a 2/3 majority. However, it should have been done so for both referendums, or, at least, proposed prior to the second one.
Absolutely outrageous claims made on all sides typical for political rivalries
-
Right back at ya!
Please feel free to point out any time I've used a derogatory term or insult about anyone who has voted to leave, here or anywhere else.
-
Please feel free to point out any time I've used a derogatory term or insult about anyone who has voted to leave, here or anywhere else.
You first. The same question directed back to you as you seem to think I have made derogatory comment
-
Sooooo easy to blame somebody else instead of admitting that people wanted what they voted for.
If only there was some way for the ones who voted to leave to enjoy the consequences, without affecting the rest of us. I'd be more than happy to see the ex-Nissan workers and ex-Welsh steel workers reflecting on their choice while watching daytime TV, but it saddens me that their foolishness has such a bad impact on folks like Rob (and me, to a lesser extent I suspect).
-
You first. The same question directed back to you as you seem to think I have made derogatory comment
"Remoaner". Obviously.
-
Absolutely outrageous claims made on all sides typical for political rivalries
Hardly. To some extent I agree with you that the choice was made and must be respected, but the role of fake news and social media cannot be ignored (see Carole Cadwalladr's TED talk for example, and recent Channel 4 investigation of Aaron Banks)
-
"Remoaner". Obviously.
Seriously? ::)
So I cannot have a reaction to being classed as a racist which is so far from reality.
-
You first. The same question directed back to you as you seem to think I have made derogatory comment
Your reply at #85 using the term 'remoaners' is derogatory.
-
Your reply at #85 using the term 'remoaners' is derogatory.
It is not a libel if it is factual ;)
-
Hardly. To some extent I agree with you that the choice was made and must be respected, but the role of fake news and social media cannot be ignored (see Carole Cadwalladr's TED talk for example, and recent Channel 4 investigation of Aaron Banks)
I also to some extent agree with you but the lies and falsehoods have been perpetrated by all sides to meet their own political ends. There is an equal amount of remainer falsehoods well documented and published by the media
-
Your reply at #85 using the term 'remoaners' is derogatory.
I take on board what you say but have to disagree
Now to your question about your derogatory remarks although already touched upon in an earlier post:
Your implication that it not possible to have reasoned discussion with a pro-Brexit supporter = derogatory
Your belief that you can just call those that do not share your views gullible = derogatory
-
I also to some extent agree with you but the lies and falsehoods have been perpetrated by all sides to meet their own political ends. There is an equal amount of remainer falsehoods well documented and published by the media
I don't recall anything on the Remain side approximating the Farage posters of non-white refugees, for example. I think this appeal to racism is completely different from economic predictions.
-
Seriously? ::)
So I cannot have a reaction to being classed as a racist which is so far from reality.
You can, but you can't then claim that you didn't use derogatory language.
-
I don't recall anything on the Remain side approximating the Farage posters of non-white refugees, for example. I think this appeal to racism is completely different from economic predictions.
Why is not willing to let non-compatible cultures in equated with racism?
-
I don't recall anything on the Remain side approximating the Farage posters of non-white refugees, for example. I think this appeal to racism is completely different from economic predictions.
I agree I was very uncomfortable with Farage poster campaign and racism is a definite no go area. One reason why I would not want to even consider becoming a Corbinite as according to a number of reports racism/ antisemitism is rearing its head once again in major political parties
-
You can, but you can't then claim that you didn't use derogatory language.
OK, but how is using Remoaners worse than using Brexiteers and is it really seen as derogatory unless intended as such?
Do you think that being accused of racism incorrectly and unfairly can be justified in spite of evidence to the contrary?
-
Why is not willing to let non-compatible cultures in equated with racism?
Hah Slobo - there are some topics I'm not going to waste time discussing. Climate change, flat earth, and your views on race.
-
Hah Slobo - there are some topics I'm not going to waste time discussing. Climate change, flat earth, and your views on race.
Mine and how many millions of Brits, again? ;)
-
OK, but how is using Remoaners worse than using Brexiteers and is it really seen as derogatory unless intended as such?
Do you think that being accused of racism incorrectly and unfairly can be justified in spite of evidence to the contrary?
I didn't say it was better or worse. Just that it's derogatory.
As for racism, I don't know if you're a racist or not, I'm happy to believe not. But there's no doubt that racism is a key plank of UKIP's platform.
-
Your implication that it not possible to have reasoned discussion with a pro-Brexit supporter = derogatory
Not anything I've actually written. It's just difficult to have a reasoned discussion about brexit without people starting to use derogatory language as you're just demonstrated.
Not impossible, just tediously rare.
Your belief that you can just call those that do not share your views gullible = derogatory
It's not an insult or derogatory, just a simple description of some people who are "easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gullible
-
... But there's no doubt that racism is a key plank of UKIP's platform.
Especially when you hijack the definition of racism.
-
Not anything I've actually written. It's just difficult to have a reasoned discussion about brexit without people starting to use derogatory language as you're just demonstrated.
Not impossible, just tediously rare.
It's not an insult or derogatory, just a simple description of some people who are "easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gullible
Wrong again and comments just as derogatory as the first instance!
-
...It's not an insult or derogatory, just a simple description of some people who are "easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say"...
The term itself may or may not be derogatory. It is not when it is factual for certain individuals. When you apply it to tens of millions who voted one way, it certainly is.
-
The term itself may or may not be derogatory. It is not when it is factual for certain individuals. When you apply it to tens of millions who voted one way, it certainly is.
Hmm. It would be a good argument if you could point out the tangible benefits of Brexit that non-gullible folk had voted for.
-
Hmm. It would be a good argument if you could point out the tangible benefits of Brexit that non-gullible folk had voted for.
It doesn't have to do much with tangible benefits, not everything people vote for has to do with money or similar.
-
The childish bickering needs to stop. There has been nearly two pages of it.
Jeremy
-
^^ Apologies for my contribution, Jeremy.
Back to being serious. There is not much we can do at this point, especially we outsiders, other than debate it endlessly, an exercise in futility in itself. It has been an unfortunate historical spectacle or debacle, however one wants to look at it. There is probably no other way to describe what is happening but admitting that democracy can be real messy sometimes.
My sympathies are with Rob, and everyone else caught in it at a personal level. I do not have a horse in this race, and can certainly see the validity in opinions on both sides.
I can only wish the British people luck, whatever the future brings.
-
Have the British got a handle on things? A very enthusiastic leaver, of my acquantance, could not understand what the fuss over the Irish border is. He said why don't we just leave the border as it is at present. When told that that could only happen if we continued to obey the same rules as the rest of the EU. He, nor a couple of others present, had not realised that fact.
So they voted leave without understanding a fundamental point about being part of the EU!
-
Hmm. It would be a good argument if you could point out the tangible benefits of Brexit that non-gullible folk had voted for.
Can't be done. There is no benefit that begins to compare with those currently enjoyed. There's an easy way perhaps to demonstrate a point to Slobodan: Slobodan lives in the USA and as far as I know, finance and desire permitting, he is free to travel to any of its states; from Atlantic to Pacific, from northern Caribbean/Mexican Gulf to Canadian borders. Curently, I and the 66 million (?) Brits have our similar vast range of territorial prospects to enjoy. As Slobodan's pleasure of working anywhere in that vast land, so ours with Europe at the moment. We have our European version of the Rockies, our side of that Atlantic and in the Mediterranean our version of the Gulf of Mexico. As can Slobodan in the States, if we want to, we can work and/or live and love anywhere at all within that vast European zone at will.
Does Slobodan see an advantage in us confining ourselves to little England? And I mean England. I never felt Scotland breaking away and becoming a tiny, under resourced nation was a sound idea, but I honestly think that this time, it is going to happen. It has been ignored in this debacle, passed over as if of no consequence. If Scotland has one thing in abundance, that's national pride. The almost mocking and patronising manner in which its MPs have been treated in debates in Parliament over the Brexit thing is shameful. Life does not forgive your sins, as we all find out, one way or the other.
Those vague ideas of finding brand new, far greater markets outwith Europe are based on wishful thinking. The truth is that our luck is in being members of this club we are presently in: it's why we have the few car companies we do have - for now - and that is the double-sided sword that quitting Europe will draw right across our throats if we leave. Our unique, also historical supremacy in banking and insurance is entirely due to our language and savoir faire in those fields, and has depended on the seamless operational function we currently enjoy with the larger blocks of financial power, our ability to be the most truly international intermediary there is. We cannot retain that if we leave, as every vaguely similar European city has been racing to attempt to show.
At the risk of being boring, when did being tiny mean being stong? The previous US president stood in London and told them that the US likes, is obliged to deal first with the big players; that we would discover ourselves at the end of the queue on any trade negotiations. This latest one, mutually playing games with Farage, tells it otherwise. If he is actually telling what he believes to be a truth, then that is bad news for the USA.
In earlier posts I've been patronised too, my pro-remain beliefs being narrowed to my personal status quo, and gently patted on the head with never mind, old boy, we understand. No, you don't. I have family living and working in Britain, folks who have worked hard and achieved top degrees in law and medicine. I may have a couple of years of life left if lucky, they have their careers ahead of them. Of course I want them to live in a land of opportunity, a continent of opportunity, not a miserable post-Victorian backwater.
-
So they voted leave without understanding a fundamental point about being part of the EU!
It's not surprising at all that a lot of the general public don't understand the EU; what it does, how it works and how we fit in. There's no real attempt at economic and political education in the UK. Unless people take an interest they only discover issues when they directly impact their lives.
What was shocking were reports that the government minister, David Davies, responsible for brexit arrived in Brussels to start negotiations to leave and expected to make a deal with Germany first.
-
The previous US president stood in London and told them that the US likes, is obliged to deal first with the big players; that we would discover ourselves at the end of the queue on any trade negotiations.
Indeed, he did. And it was controversial not only in the U.K. but also here in the States because there is a longstanding U.S. government policy of avoiding official comment favoring one side in another democratic country's elections. (And many here equated the Brexit referendum with an election for the purpose of the application of that policy.)
My understanding is that Obama always consulted the career professionals in the State Department and other relevant agencies before making pronouncements on international policy. I think it's likely his rather unorthodox statements in favor of Britain staying in the EU were approved by the diplomatic, military, and intelligence bureaucracies as being in interest of the United States, rather than simply as a gratuitous expression of personal opinion. My impression is that U.S. foreign policy professionals were (and probably remain) leery of a Europe entirely dominated by Germany and France, and that they saw (and probably continue to see) the British perspective as being more consistent with U.S. diplomatic and military objectives that the perspectives of many of the governments in continental Europe. I think it's significant that there have been echoes of that attitude in the Trump Administration: although Trump has gone out of his way to disassociate himself with many other Obama foreign policies, and while his dog-eat-dog attitudes toward trade and migration inclined him to side with the Brexiters, he has continued Obama's practice of urging our European partners in NATO to invest more in their respective military forces—which no doubt reflects the longstanding recommendations of the bureaucracy.
Seen from this perspective, Obama's comment about trading partners probably should be interpreted as an argument made with a strategic purpose. Of course, as Henry Kissenger was fond of quoting in other contexts, it has the added benefit of being true. The EU, with or without the U.K., will surely be a more important trading partner for the United States than the U.K. as a standalone entity. Regardless of what Trump may say in his forthcoming visit to London, I'd be surprised if his trade representatives act differently in that respect than their predecessors.
-
... Of course I want them to live in a land of opportunity, a continent of opportunity, not a miserable post-Victorian backwater.
Have them come to America then. Free movement, lots of opportunity, one language. How many English-speaking countries in Europe?
-
Have them come to America then. Free movement, lots of opportunity, one language. How many English-speaking countries in Europe?
Not everyone with career mobility chooses to go to the States; there are all sorts of cultural differences they might not like, casual approach to guns being one that springs instantly to mind. Many people with the aforementioned qualities/skills do have command of languages other than English. That ability kinda fits yourself, too, doesn't it? And many people in Europe, especially the better educated, speak English as well as - if not far better - than many Brits, something we note here on LuLa itself.
Don't forget, either, that not everyone born in England - sorry, the effect of it being their Brexit! - Britain has blood totally disassociated from Europe and an affection for, say, French, Spanish or Italian ways, something from which sometimes staid and stolid Brits could learn a positive thing or two. It's not only weather drives many to retire to Spain etc.
But anyhow, as you were clearly aware when you wrote the quotation above, having an American choice, itself not that easy to fulfil, is not something that was denied by us being members of the European set-up; it just means we shall now probably have a far narrower number of formerly unquestioned options from which to choose. Giving up a bunch of freely granted location rights can never be an advantage.
Rob
-
Not everyone with career mobility chooses to go to the States; there are all sorts of cultural differences they might not like, casual approach to guns being one that springs instantly to mind. Many people with the aforementioned qualities/skills do have command of languages other than English. That ability kinda fits yourself, too, doesn't it? And many people in Europe, especially the better educated, speak English as well as - if not far better - than many Brits, something we note here on LuLa itself.
Don't forget, either, that not everyone born in England - sorry, the effect of it being their Brexit! - Britain has blood totally disassociated from Europe and an affection for, say, French, Spanish or Italian ways, something from which sometimes staid and stolid Brits could learn a positive thing or two. It's not only weather drives many to retire to Spain etc.
But anyhow, as you were clearly aware when you wrote the quotation above, having an American choice, itself not that easy to fulfil, is not something that was denied by us being members of the European set-up; it just means we shall now probably have a far narrower number of formerly unquestioned options from which to choose. Giving up a bunch of freely granted location rights can never be an advantage.
Rob
In the daily cut and thrust of argumentation, it's sometimes helpful to go back to basics. Does anyone remember the reason they wanted to "leave" in the first place and what the benefits of that would be? Living in Canada I was never really exposed to the origins of the movement, I only heard the usual pre-vote emotional nonsense. I assume that there were schools of thought who tried to make the case in some reasonable (maybe even fact-based) way. Is there a published position paper on the web somewhere by a "leave" think tank, for example?
As an aside, I'm curious about mobility in the US. Is it an easy thing to cross state lines from a health care point of view in a country with no universal health coverage? Are there insurance penalties when doing that? I remember hearing a talk by Republican (but anti-Trump) David Frum who said that the health care limitation was a real roadblock for many people who would otherwise like to migrate to different areas of the US for jobs, but he didn't go into detail so I don't know how that plays out. Does it mean, in general, that you have to cancel one policy and try to buy for another in the new state? Knowing the insurance business, I can see where they would use this as an opportunity.
-
Well Robert, it was an easy choice (leaving) for me because the way of the business in Scotland meant that I was doing very little day-to-day work, most being trips somewhere and calendars. I also had live contacts in the travel business and that meant airlines were not a problem expense-wise going back and forth from Spain to Scotland. The practical reason for coming was the locations I could use here. Also, the cost of living here in those days - early 80s - was advantageous to us.
That was a personal reason for leaving Britain.
Quite why anyone today would choose to leave the European concept and deny themselves all the holiday travel benefits of free health care, for example, that they, as Brits, currently enjoy, is beyond me. One granddaughter had to go to hospital once, and my daughter has repeatedly had to use the local clinics because of ear problems caused by pool water. Health services are very important when you travel. Calling out a private doctor can be very expensive indeed. Far better to be able to call the local PAC station who will send somebody to see you in emergencies.
Travel health is, of course, just one consideration.
I know of no official, clinically neutral and factual publication that was doing the rounds at the time of the referendum, only about the daily news reports and street interviews and slanted political posturings. In retrospect, it seems to me that the only people moving heaven and earth were the Brexit bunch. I can only assume the remain side felt it was obvious enough that remaining was the best economic bet; I have no doubt Cameron based his rash call on that clearly misplaced judgement about his countrymen. What was it Barnum said, again?
If your wonderings about US healthcare are correct regarding consequences of crossing state lines, then it would seem like an added reason why folks from the UK (see Slobodan's point about moving there instead of to Europe) would find it less than attractive. The European version is clearly far advanced and available to all citizens within that union of countries.
Regarding private insurance: for years we paid into the Spanish MAPFRE company and they were excellent during both my heart attacks and most of my wife's cancer treatment. We only stopped paying because her last admission was an emergency and precluded the longer ambulance trip to the big smoke, and so she went to the local state hospital. She found it excellent. Considering the cost had risen greatly, we decided we couldn't really afford the luxury(?) of going private anymore.
Rob
-
In the daily cut and thrust of argumentation, it's sometimes helpful to go back to basics. Does anyone remember the reason they wanted to "leave" in the first place and what the benefits of that would be? Living in Canada I was never really exposed to the origins of the movement, I only heard the usual pre-vote emotional nonsense. I assume that there were schools of thought who tried to make the case in some reasonable (maybe even fact-based) way. Is there a published position paper on the web somewhere by a "leave" think tank, for example?
As an aside, I'm curious about mobility in the US. Is it an easy thing to cross state lines from a health care point of view in a country with no universal health coverage? Are there insurance penalties when doing that? I remember hearing a talk by Republican (but anti-Trump) David Frum who said that the health care limitation was a real roadblock for many people who would otherwise like to migrate to different areas of the US for jobs, but he didn't go into detail so I don't know how that plays out. Does it mean, in general, that you have to cancel one policy and try to buy for another in the new state? Knowing the insurance business, I can see where they would use this as an opportunity.
As another outsider, I am not aware of any position paper either. I doubt they exist. Again, as an outsider, my take is that it is a purely emotional decision of wishing to preserve the national identity, for better or worse. If economics would play any major role, nobody would ever divorce.
As for US medical insurance, I moved from Illinois to Indiana to Florida without the need to change policies. I can not guarantee that is the case for every other state and other individual cases. One potential difference might be in-network (cheaper) availability of doctors and hospitals, depending on how well spread an insurer is nationally.
-
"
As an aside, I'm curious about mobility in the US. Is it an easy thing to cross state lines from a health care point of view in a country with no universal health coverage? Are there insurance penalties when doing that? I remember hearing a talk by Republican (but anti-Trump) David Frum who said that the health care limitation was a real roadblock for many people who would otherwise like to migrate to different areas of the US for jobs, but he didn't go into detail so I don't know how that plays out. Does it mean, in general, that you have to cancel one policy and try to buy for another in the new state? Knowing the insurance business, I can see where they would use this as an opportunity.
"
yes, it is an issue and it depends on the policy purchased. Many approaches restrict you to coverage within their network of doctors and facilities for full benefits. Many times you will be "out of network" and the benefits are reduced or eliminated. Some don't restrict the doctors, but limit the geographic area for coverage. The experience i have had with my wife's policy is that if it is a true medical emergency, then they will cover as if within your normal area/doctors. If not an "emergency" by their definition, then minimal coverage if any.
When you relocate, you determine a new "home area" and look for doctors that are part of the network if the coverage is available in that state. If not, then you have to get a new policy. If you are lucky, the employer already has provisions based on their being physically located in the area. If not, well, there is the ACA act insurance based policies and all of it's issues as a backstop. There is a lot more effort placed on the consumer in the US, likely to our detriment as many do not pay attention or have the inclination.
-
As an aside, I'm curious about mobility in the US. Is it an easy thing to cross state lines from a health care point of view in a country with no universal health coverage? Are there insurance penalties when doing that? I remember hearing a talk by Republican (but anti-Trump) David Frum who said that the health care limitation was a real roadblock for many people who would otherwise like to migrate to different areas of the US for jobs, but he didn't go into detail so I don't know how that plays out. Does it mean, in general, that you have to cancel one policy and try to buy for another in the new state? Knowing the insurance business, I can see where they would use this as an opportunity.
There's no single, simple answer to that question.
About half the population (https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D) gets medical insurance through employer-sponsored group plans. (Some employers offer a choice of plans. Most contribute part of the premiums; a few cover the entire cost of medical insurance.) If you relocate to another state while working for the same employer, you generally keep the same insurance, although since insurance companies are regulated by the state governments it is possible that the premiums and, in some cases, the details of the coverage may change. If you relocate to another state and change employers, and the new employer offers an insurance plan, you will need to change to that employer's plan.
About a fifth of the population is covered by Medicaid, a federally funded program to provide medical insurance for the poor which is administered by the state governments. Medicaid benefits vary from state to state.
Approximately 15 percent of the population is covered by Medicare, a federally funded and administered program to provide medical insurance for the elderly. There are also federally funded and administered nationwide medical programs for federal government employees and retirees and for military veterans.
People without employer-sponsored or federally funded medical insurance need to acquire insurance, if they can, independently. The federal Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") provides marketplaces in each state where insurance companies with policies that meet specified coverage requirements can offer medical insurance to them, or they can try to acquire it on their own. Either way, the cost can be substantial or—for those who for one reason or another do not use the ACA marketplaces—the coverage minimal. The federal government subsidizes the cost of insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces for people below a certain income threshold who do not qualify for Medicaid.
About a tenth of the population is uninsured. Hospitals in the United States are required by law to provide treatment to individuals with medical emergencies.
So how much does the fragmented U.S. system of medical insurance discourage people from moving between states? I doubt there is any way to make a reliable estimate. Obviously, it's not an impediment for people with federally funded and administered medical programs or for employees who move from one state to another while working for an employer that provides access to a group insurance policy. Medicaid recipients who qualify for coverage in one state will usually qualify in another, but poor people in general probably tend to be less likely than affluent ones to relocate. For those who need to acquire insurance on their own, it certainly could be a factor to consider before relocating—at least, if there is no guarantee of employer-sponsored insurance in the new location.
-
In the daily cut and thrust of argumentation, it's sometimes helpful to go back to basics. Does anyone remember the reason they wanted to "leave" in the first place and what the benefits of that would be?
Something to do with bendy bananas as far as I recall.
-
In the daily cut and thrust of argumentation, it's sometimes helpful to go back to basics. Does anyone remember the reason they wanted to "leave" in the first place and what the benefits of that would be?....
My opinion is that the main themes for the leave campaign revolve around sovereignty and migration.
Sovereignty is the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK. Thomson Reuters report suggests that over 50,000 laws have been introduced by the EU legislation into the UK since 1990.
The exact figures and interpretation of law vs rules vs regulation vs recommendation may be disputed but the fact remains that an awful lot of rulings have been pushed upon us including but not limited to trade, agriculture, financial services, employment, immigration. Some I am sure welcomed as being good for instance climate and energy laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions from major industries or (depending on worker or employer!!) The Working Time directive giving workers rights to minimum holiday entitlements and limiting a working week to 48 hours. This does not apply to all of course and we have relatives living and working in Scotland as doctors that are under pressure and have to work considerably longer hours than this!
The ‘bendy banana law’ is a ridiculous example of red tape and wastage of money (ours!) and resources. Started to lay down quality standards for bananas in 1995 and replaced with new rules in 2012. Most of us are quite capable of choosing or rejecting a fruit or vegetable that does not meet our aesthetic ideals or taste – I like really ripe bananas that are flecked and brown whereas my better half likes them close to green – I rarely get to eat bananas these days unless I squirrel them away! It is not clear to me if the regulations actually meant a real ban on bent bananas or just a classification of substandard. The stupidity of such a thing seems plain to see and the only advantage I can see is for that rule makers create employment opportunities within Brussels. How many more examples will you find if you look? It would be interesting to see an actual breakdown of the time and costs in monetary value and personnel this one aspect of silly red tape has cost members.
Sorry about the lengthy discourse on bananas but it was just a red herring to lead into fishing policy :D.
Following Brexit, the UK will no longer be a part of the EU fishing policy effectively becoming an independent coastal state with full responsibilities for managing fisheries in the UK’s own economic zone extending some 200 miles (?). For many years there has been intense rivalry over fishing waters by our own fishermen and other members of the EU. Occasionally spilling over into at best-heated argument and worse violence. This may explain the vote to leave by many of our coastal towns particularly those reliant on fishing.
Talking about fish thoughts turned to Wales (sorry only a small joke I love Wales particularly North Wales where my parents once lived). It seems that in these debates it is always put across that it is the English alone that want to leave vs the other countries in the UK. Not seen a mention of Wales which did vote to leave by a majority of 52.5% - seems like it is a two all draw for countries :-)
Migration is obviously a thorny subject not just in Europe but for many countries. Will building walls help, I do not know. We once had an Italian by the name of Hadrian visit us and order the building of a wall. Depending on which side of the wall you stood it could be viewed as keeping the barbarians out or keeping the English bastards in. In any event, it did not work.
Seriously, migration can be both good and bad for a country. The good being an influx of new blood bringing needed skills and expertise to benefit all without becoming a burden to the state. A prime example being our National Health service which although rather ill itself at the moment would fall apart without the skilled and dedicated support of many nationalities including those outside Europe. The bad being those that are not prepared to apply themselves and work and see sponging off state services as acceptable and some kind of right effectively denying the really needy of help.
Of course, we English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish have also been responsible and migrated some of our very best gangsters and villains to the Spanish Costa's possibly relieving us of their demands on society. Who would have guessed that they would be replaced by European gangs?
-
My opinion is that the main themes for the leave campaign revolve around sovereignty and migration.
That's certainly what they tried to suggest;
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
Although the actual facts are somewhat different and the blatant lies on that page still haven't been removed.
The ‘bendy banana law’ is a ridiculous example of red tape and wastage of money (ours!) and resources.
This is also one of the most misunderstood and repeated bits of false information.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johnson-launches-the-vote-leave-battlebus-in-cornwall
To quote from the last article"Nothing is banned under the regulation, which sets grading rules requested by industry to make sure importers – including UK wholesalers and supermarkets – know exactly what they will be getting when they order a box of bananas."
What's wrong with that ?
So much has been lied about EU regulation that the EU set up a dedicated myth busting web page on them. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
Following Brexit, the UK will no longer be a part of the EU fishing policy effectively becoming an independent coastal state with full responsibilities for managing fisheries in the UK’s own economic zone extending some 200 miles (?). For many years there has been intense rivalry over fishing waters by our own fishermen and other members of the EU. Occasionally spilling over into at best-heated argument and worse violence.
Er yes, the last time there was dispute over fishing rights it was British trawlers raiding French waters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45337091
That the UK fishing industry will be hit hard by brexit by cutting off their main export market is wonderful example of how people are being taken advantage of.
Whether the fishing industry is worth so much attention when it is so insignificant to the UK economy is debatable too.
-
... To quote from the last article"Nothing is banned under the regulation, which sets grading rules requested by industry to make sure importers – including UK wholesalers and supermarkets – know exactly what they will be getting when they order a box of bananas."
What's wrong with that ?
If importers want to know what they will be getting, they can specify it in contracts with exporters. It doesn't really need a bloated bureaucracy to do that. The very fact that there are dedicated people in charge of monitoring bendy-banana issues speaks by itself how ridiculous and petty bureaucracy can become.
...So much has been lied about EU regulation that the EU set up a dedicated myth busting web page on them...
If you need to set up a myth-busting page, you've already lost the battle.
-
That's certainly what they tried to suggest;
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
Although the actual facts are somewhat different and the blatant lies on that page still haven't been removed.
Yes of course your view of what you believe to be actual facts!
Blatant lies well again yes and you should consider taking action and legal advice to sue as you have factual evidence. Please feel free to reveal your ‘actual facts’ from an impartial source I trust!
This is also one of the most misunderstood and repeated bits of false information.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johnson-launches-the-vote-leave-battlebus-in-cornwall
To quote from the last article"Nothing is banned under the regulation, which sets grading rules requested by industry to make sure importers – including UK wholesalers and supermarkets – know exactly what they will be getting when they order a box of bananas."
What's wrong with that ?
So you are in violent agreement with my assesment that it is a nonsense? But as yet you have said nothing about the cost of such red tape therefore can we assume you approve of such wastage of resources?
So much has been lied about EU regulation that the EU set up a dedicated myth busting web page on them. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
Er yes, the last time there was dispute over fishing rights it was British trawlers raiding French waters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45337091
That the UK fishing industry will be hit hard by brexit by cutting off their main export market is wonderful example of how people are being taken advantage of.
Whether the fishing industry is worth so much attention when it is so insignificant to the UK economy is debatable too.
There have been so many lies and falsehoods by all sides on many issues.
Yes British trawlers may have raided other waters in tit for tat exchanges. The main export markets will not be cut off due to a split with EU is another opinion.
Your claim that the fishing industry is not worth attention as it is insignificant is deplorable
-
Yes of course your view of what you believe to be actual facts!
"Turkey is one of five new countries joining the EU" No, they've applied to join, but have been refused membership. There are no confirmed new members pending at the moment.
"We'll have to keep bailing out the euro", No, we're not in the eurozone we have no financial commitment to it.
The £350m lie has been pulled apart so often it's barely worth doing again here.
But as yet you have said nothing about the cost of such red tape
An industry requested standard is hardly 'red tape'.
British trawlers may have raided other waters in tit for tat exchanges.
Any evidence of disputes about foreign trawlers fishing in UK only waters ?
Your claim that the fishing industry is not worth attention as it is insignificant is deplorable
Again, not what I said. Please comment on what I write, not what your prejudices think.
The debate is whether the fishing industry should be a key reason to leave the EU (as it has been used for) when it contributes so little to the UK economy and employs so few.
-
The debate is whether the fishing industry should be a key reason to leave the EU (as it has been used for) when it contributes so little to the UK economy and employs so few.
Comically, Grimsby, which voted 70% leave, has now been demanding "free port" status to mitigate the impact of the resulting import/export restrictions.
-
...The £350m lie has been pulled apart so often it's barely worth doing again here.
As you seem reluctant to quote figures I will. £350 million is roughly what we would pay to the EU budget without a rebate. The amount actually paid with the rebate is closer to £250 million a week. So yes it was not exactly the whole truth but...No different economy of truth than the remainers claim that there are an equal number of expats in Europe to those enjoying life in the UK the difference being actually 1.2 million expats in Europe with 3.2 million EU migrants in Britain
An industry requested standard is hardly 'red tape'.
What industry standard and what authority? Semantics and an evasion of the original question. Are you a would be politician by any chance?
Any evidence of disputes about foreign trawlers fishing in UK only waters ?
I have not searched but the dispute you linked to the UK government has stated that the fisherman had the rights and were going about there business legally
Spokesman Alan Hastings said: “French fishermen resorting to intimidation and violence is hypocrisy in the extreme.
“For 40 years we have had to endure French and other EU fishermen catching 60 percent of the fish in British waters, insultingly much taken just off the coasts of Cornwall.
“The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has been deliberately loaded against Britain.
“Although we've provided half the waters and resources to the common pot we've only received 25 per cent of the internationally agreed total allowable quotas (TACs).”
Again, not what I said. Please comment on what I write, not what your prejudices think.
Once again your insinuation of prejudice are objectionable and now you are beginning to annoy as I believe you are baiting
The debate is whether the fishing industry should be a key reason to leave the EU (as it has been used for) when it contributes so little to the UK economy and employs so few.
There is no debate my contention is that fishing rights may be a reason why coastal towns voted to leave. You, sir, are the one that needs to comment on what was written rather than put your own spin on things
-
I've been reluctant to comment on this Brexit issue because the entire situation seems so ridiculously convoluted and confusing, and because I'm not a British resident familiar with the nuances.
Although I was born, raised and educated in England, I left the country long before Britain became a member of the EU, finally settling in Australia around 1972 because I preferred the weather, the more laid-back and egalitarian society with less strict rules, the closer proximity of Australia to Asian countries such as Thailand where I had lived and worked in my early 20's, and so on.
However, it has occurred to me that a more serious problem than the Brexit issue, is the apparent inability of the British political system to implement the outcome of their own referendum. In other words, the confusion and never-ending delays and disagreements preventing an amicable Brexit solution, is an indication that the political system and rules regarding referendums in the UK need to be changed.
The referendum procedures are flawed. My advice to the UK would be, first change the rules regarding referendums so that the outcome will be clear and unambiguous, then hold another referendum on the Brexit issue.
In the Australian system, those voter results on the Brexit referendum would not have been considered a sufficient majority. Our standards are higher. ;D
In Australia, in order for a referendum to succeed, a double majority is required. That is, a majority of the total votes throughout the country is required, in addition to a majority vote in the majority of the states. We have 6 states in Australia (although one of them is described as a Territory). Not all states have similar size populations, so in a referendum it would be possible for there to be a significant over-all majority, say 65%, which would, however, not be sufficient if 3 out of the 6 states voted against the referendum.
As I understand, the UK has 'effectively' 4 states which have at least some of their own administrative powers within the system; England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Only England and Wales voted to leave the EU, (2 out of 4) and the over-all majority throughout the UK was quite small at 51.9%. That's the problem.
-
Ray you are correct, but at the root of the matter is that the whole referendum farce was designed to solve an internal Tory party problem, and demonstrate to UKIP that there was no support for their position. As such, the rules seemed unimportant. That backfired spectacularly, as we see.
-
.....However, it has occurred to me that a more serious problem than the Brexit issue, is the apparent inability of the British political system to implement the outcome of their own referendum. In other words, the confusion and never-ending delays and disagreements preventing an amicable Brexit solution, is an indication that the political system and rules regarding referendums in the UK need to be changed.
The referendum procedures are flawed. My advice to the UK would be, first change the rules regarding referendums so that the outcome will be clear and unambiguous, then hold another referendum on the Brexit issue.
In the Australian system, those voter results on the Brexit referendum would not have been considered a sufficient majority. Our standards are higher. ;D
Ray, a reasoned opinion and confirmation to me of the great trait of Australian pragmatism.;D There is absolutely no reason why you should not voice your opinion here Brit or not.
Ever since we entered the EU there have been a good number of Eurosceptics putting a good case forward for not being part of the union, UKIP being probably the straw that broke the camels back.
Regardless of viewpoint, I believe it is clear that rules need to be reviewed and changed and agree that 'a sufficient majority' needs to be established. What constitutes a sufficient majority 15,30,60,90%? Ahh, a subject for another referendum ;)
After consideration, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps if we have another failure to reach an agreement a referendum should be held with very clear cut rules of what will happen in the event of not reaching a sufficient majority - God help us with that one as we would be stuck in the same loop!
Does this viewpoint break any democratic ideal I am not sure but it may help to partially heal the divide within the British public on this subject.
-
Regardless of viewpoint, I believe it is clear that rules need to be reviewed and changed and agree that 'a sufficient majority' needs to be established. What constitutes a sufficient majority 15,30,60,90%? Ahh, a subject for another referendum ;)
Well, obviously not 15% or 30%. The two basic choices would be either a 'double majority' or a significant over-all majority such as 60% or 70%, say 2/3rds.
I guess the problem with the 'double majority' concept is that the populations of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are so small compared with England. I didn't realize that the population of Northern Ireland is less than 2 million. Wales and Scotland have larger populations but still small compared with England's 56 million, which is 10 times the population of Scotland, and about 18 times the population of Wales.
With a 'double majority' requirement for a referendum to succeed, one could get a very large over-all majority in favour of the referendum, such as 80% of all voters, yet the referendum could still fail if the majority vote in N. Ireland and Wales went the other way. That doesn't seem a fair balance.
Perhaps the British government could combine the two issues into one referendum, in order to save time and money. The ballot paper would include two major questions. (1) 'Should the UK leave the EU? (2) Should a 2/3rd's majority be required for all referendums to pass?
If just 51% vote that a 2/3rd's majority should be required, but less than 66% vote to leave the EU, then the UK would have to remain in the EU. Problem solved.
However, if only 49% vote for the 2/3rd's majority requirement, and 51% vote to leave the EU, then we are back to the same situation of confusion and indecision. The people have spoken, and they have not changed their mind. Can you believe such a result would occur? ;)
-
2. Referenda could be used to collect the public opinion on far-reaching decisions, either in an advisory form, to help a government make up its mind, or in a binding form, which has to be followed by government (or they could resign). The problem with referenda is that they require well-informed voters, and that's not easy in this day and age where fake news, foreign interference, and populism, distort a clear view on such complex issues.
I tend to disagree with this for two reasons:
1 with all referenda I know of, the sentiment and outcome was mostly known, especially roughly or indicatively, which means it is a waste of resources. Even if something topples at 51% that still doesn't change the sentiment that apparently lives among a large part of the people.
2 referenda shouldn't involve binary decisions, as that doesn't contribute to the decisionmaking process and acceptance of consequences. Referenda should typically involve maybe 3 to 5 options with primary positive (and perhaps primary negative) consequence as part of the choice, imo. That would provide a better understanding both for the electorate as well as the legislators.
3 referenda as binary decision have a tendency to not think in terms of solutions. We detect a certain problem/sentiment. We need a solution. Wait, let's ask the people first if they want to solve or not solve the problem!
Migration apparently has become a problem, employment has become a problem, leaving the EU doesn't solve these problems and I don't believe the average voter thinks it is, but with a binary referendum, a pro brexit vote was the only way to show dissatisfaction with current affairs.
-
I do not think that in a representative democracy, such a complex issue should be put in front of an ill-informed public.
1. Representatives were chosen, in the hope and expectation that they would thoroughly study the issues at hand, weigh all pro's and con's, and make an informed decision with the best interest of all the people (not only their voters) in mind. Since we do not live in an ideal world, there should be safeguards to avoid clientelism. Parliamentary voting should go a long way in achieving that, although a 2 party system is complicating things.
2. Referenda could be used to collect the public opinion on far-reaching decisions, either in an advisory form, to help a government make up its mind, or in a binding form, which has to be followed by government (or they could resign). The problem with referenda is that they require well-informed voters, and that's not easy in this day and age where fake news, foreign interference, and populism, distort a clear view on such complex issues.
3. Low voter turnout further complicates the issue of leaving it to the people. For such far-reaching decisions as a Brexit (which is too complex for a Yes/No vote), one could draw a line at 66.7 % off all eligible voters, not just the ones who cared enough to turn up despite the weather or were herded to the voting booths.
Cheers,
Bart
I agree. Things are further complicated at least in the UK by the inflexible two-party system, with no proportional representation. Both main parties have now in effect hijacked the referendum process, seeing going along with "the people's vote" was the only way of promoting their own, partisan interests regardless of whether Brexit is in anyone's long-term interests. It's all about access to power and maintaining the current political system. What Brexit has shown at least to some is that the current system is completely broken. It's disenfranchised people, since no matter who you vote for you get the same old crappy system anyway, and it's left the two main parties very poorly equipped to deal with the real challenges which lie ahead in terms of things like climate change and the world economy. Trump, Farage and co see this as the dawn of a new populist era. More likely it's the last gasp of a now-discredited old order. The young don't want it and aren't interested.
-
Well, in the UK, informed political opinion imagined that there was no way an educated population aware of the results of the two choices would ever vote to leave; or so thought poor old Cameron.
The result showed that half the people, by a small percentage, had no idea what was actually involved beyond their personal fears and prejudices. Or, if they were better informed, considered suicide a more rational choice of action. Many people do that, so not much new.
Regarding the two-party system: we have it because the other alternative parties have no support in any meaningful way. Look at Spain today: you see at once the problems associated with having a country split between a myriad political parties. Three elections in four years, I think, and still no working majority today, just another sordid era of horse-trading, just as in England the UK with the current, paid-for, stitch-up with that NI party...
-
There were a couple of references to "red tape" above and one comment by Slobodan about how importers and exporters can agree to certain criteria in contracts without bureaucratic oversight that should be examined a bit. The suggestion seems to be that independent agents don't need top-down rules from government, for example, to set up banana "bendiness" categories. I am not an expert in trade agreements but I have friends who worked on the original NAFTA agreement and there is a reason that these things are 1000s of pages long. A lot of those pages set up standards like the "bendiness" of bananas or how to specify the thread pitch of bolts in a standard uniform way so that all parties in the future can use these standard definitions to make life easier for themselves. These are NOT rules invented by civil servants to make trade difficult, these standards are ASKED FOR by commercial entities precisely because they don't want to waste time re-negotiating the "bendiness" categories of bananas with each importer/exporter with which that have to deal. It is not correct to think that these rules are handed down by government bureaucracies; companies in those industries and the various trade associations are integral to the construction of those rules in the first place. They themselves want the rules because it is more efficient and they make more money.
I have no doubt that from time to time one of the agents find something in the rules that they don't like. When does that NOT happen?
1000 pages of rules sounds like a lot when quoted in a newspaper article but it's better than 500 pages of rules in every contract that's ever written. Besides which, only a handful of those 1000 pages apply in any one industry anyway. Each individual may only need to read 5 pages, not 1000.
Having multiple participating parties agree to a set of banana categories does not impact any country's sovereignty except in the most trivial way. If a country is forced to come to many different agreements with many other countries when trading in bananas, its "sovereignty" will be NO LESS affected. If anything, it will increase the size of the bureaucracy.
-
... These are NOT rules invented by civil servants to make trade difficult, these standards are ASKED FOR by commercial entities precisely because they don't want to waste time re-negotiating the "bendiness" categories of bananas with each importer/exporter with which that have to deal....
Any proof/source for that?
Also, does anyone ever have the real need to think about bendiness of bananas in the first place?
-
... 3. Low voter turnout further complicates the issue of leaving it to the people. For such far-reaching decisions as a Brexit (which is too complex for a Yes/No vote), one could draw a line at 66.7 % off all eligible voters, not just the ones who cared enough to turn up despite the weather or were herded to the voting booths.
That would make sense only if the same requirement was in place for the first referendum too.
-
The problem with referenda is that they require well-informed voters, and that's not easy in this day and age where fake news, foreign interference, and populism, distort a clear view on such complex issues.
A great post Bart overall, but this is at the heart of the problem.
There's a section of the population that have been deliberately targeted with lies and misinformation illegally and privately.
There were good rules for ensuring fair elections and preventing people buying votes either directly or by unfair advertising. In the age of social media that can no longer be policed. How we can move on from this is unclear and very, very worrying.
For a comparatively small sum, someone has done a huge amount of economic damage to the UK and Europe.
-
A huge shoutout to Rob and his compatriots (and a chuckle for Canadians):
Who are the biggest bullshitters? (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/04/30/who-are-the-biggest-bullshitters?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fauto%3Ffsrc%3Dscn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fwhoarethebiggestbullshittersdailychart&fbclid=IwAR2QwtNEWgv6vCXHMl_4W9t5AoK6oQgIkT5gzBVOjrF_JzXj1eCaPM1ADqQhttp://)
Source: The Economist magazine
‘Bullshitters’ are individuals who claim knowledge or expertise in an area where they actually have little experience or skill.
:D
-
Any proof/source for that?
Also, does anyone ever have the real need to think about bendiness of bananas in the first place?
Only conversations with friends who worked on the file. Departments like Industry Canada consult with the various industry categories, trade associations, individual companies, etc., whenever regulations are entered into, it is just standard operating procedure. Who else would they be making the rules for? If 48 nations are going to start trading bolts, nuts and washers with each other, they need to be making compatible products. Doing that efficiently is primarily of value to the producers/buyers in that industry, a priori government doesn't care and has no inherent interest in making arbitrary rules, but arranging these things internationally are most easily accomplished by the government departments set up to do exactly that, since the channels of communication are there for that purpose.
How DO people think the world works?
I can't answer your question about banana bends, as I used it as a hypothetical anyway. (I don't know the origins of that meme, but my guess is that it was just emotional nonsense concocted to sell a newspaper or bait a click. Like a lot of things, when you dig you don't find what you originally expected.) There are standards of ground beef, lean, extra lean, etc., there are cuts of wood, 2x3, 2x4, etc., there are sizes of bolt and screw heads, Philips, Robertson, etc., the list is almost endless and there are probably new ones every day. There are grades of fruit, ok for humans, ok for baking, ok for juice, ok for cattle, ETC. And who knows, maybe there is a good reason to categorize the bendiness of bananas, and it's not at all that important than you nor I know what it is, but maybe it is important to someone. Whenever I've had to dig into any subject matter during my life, things have never turned out to be as simple as first imagined.
-
Given how much has (legally) changed since 2016, readers may wish to read the latest briefing paper published last Friday by the House of Commons titled “ Brexit questions in national and EU courts “ for a brief history and recap of recent legal actions and decisions.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8415/CBP-8415.pdf
-
A huge shoutout to Rob and his compatriots (and a chuckle for Canadians):
Who are the biggest bullshitters? (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/04/30/who-are-the-biggest-bullshitters?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fauto%3Ffsrc%3Dscn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fwhoarethebiggestbullshittersdailychart&fbclid=IwAR2QwtNEWgv6vCXHMl_4W9t5AoK6oQgIkT5gzBVOjrF_JzXj1eCaPM1ADqQhttp://)
Source: The Economist magazine
:D
Darn, they forgot the line for us Texans. rest of the country is pulling our ratings once again.. ;) ;D
-
Given how much has (legally) changed since 2016, readers may wish to read the latest briefing paper published last Friday by the House of Commons titled “ Brexit questions in national and EU courts “ for a brief history and recap of recent legal actions and decisions.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8415/CBP-8415.pdf
It's moderately interesting. However, even though it was written to be clear enough for members of parliament to understand, it's fairly heavy going.
Jeremy
-
It's moderately interesting. However, even though it was written to be clear enough for members of parliament to understand, it's fairly heavy going.
Jeremy
Maybe it explains a lot: it's mindbendingly dull though vitally important. How is it possible for anyone to hold all of that in the mind, be aware of it in detail without having to stop and look something up and thus lose the point one was already at?
So much appears to be contradictory, or at least able so to seem, that the idea of Joe Public having the capacity to understand it all well enough, and thus base his opinions on anything with confidence, is absurd.
Somebody somewhere here wrote that we elect MPs to take care of matters on our behalf, matters on which we are often not well enough versed to make valid decisions for ourselves. If ever there was need for something to be removed from the public vote because of such shortcomings in the voter, it was this Brexit!
The impasse in Parliament is obviously because even there, not enough is known, in any definitive light, to the very MPs doing battle! If they are out of their depth, with the access they have to information - what chance the rest of us? This entire episode should never have been raised without a long prior examination by those expert in the legal field, upon whose final, published opinions (both for and against the motion), should have stood the information about leaving or not leaving the status quo. All that crap about money for the National Health etc. was smoke and bullshit: it was just an appeal to blind ignorance and wishful thinking and domestic political loyalties, as the image of infinity-challenging lines of swarthy migrants on the sides of transportation was to subliminal - if not overt - racism describing a situation anyway denied us by not being members of Schengen. Illegal migrants have nothing to do with EU laws!
The world is a mess. We know too much so we make too much, yet we know too little to know what to do with what we make.
-
Soooo much hand wringing about facts. In politics, as in love, facts are irrelevant by themsleves. Ultimately, it is a combination of facts, their interpretation, lies and truths, feelings and emotions, that result in a gut feeling to vote one way or the other.
The idea that there is a rational, “scientific,” objective way to make a political decision is ludicrous by itself.
-
Soooo much hand wringing about facts. In politics, as in love, facts are irrelevant by themsleves. Ultimately, it is a combination of facts, their interpretation, lies and truths, feelings and emotions, that result in a gut feeling to vote one way or the other.
The idea that there is a rational, “scientific,” objective way to make a political decision is ludicrous by itself.
True enough, so far as it goes. But there's a wide gulf between that ideal and what we've been witnessing lately. Plenty of room for improvement.
-
An informed decision would already go a long way ...
Informed (in this context) by what, and by whom, and how? One has only to ask the question to realise the futility of attempting to address the problem. The question should never have been asked, and many of us (whether inclined to leave or to stay) resented the fact that it was.
Jeremy
-
Informed (in this context) by what, and by whom, and how? One has only to ask the question to realise the futility of attempting to address the problem. The question should never have been asked, and many of us (whether inclined to leave or to stay) resented the fact that it was.
Jeremy,
We are making decisions every day that are influenced by the quality and accuracy of the information we receive, whether by advertising, scientific research, economic assessments, and so on.
Our decisions on any issue are also influenced by our own likes, dislikes, and biases. There are very few of us who are unbiased. I have a very strong bias towards being unbiased, for example. ;D
In any democratic voting system there is presumably always a margin of error due to a misunderstanding of the issues presented to the voters. I'm fairly confident if another referendum on Brexit were organised, many of those who had voted for Brexit in the first referendum, would change their mind and vote to remain in the EU.
However, in order to justify a second referendum, the point has to be made by the parliament that the referendum process needs amending, so the second referendum should include a referendum on the size of the majority. If 66.7% seems too large, then make it 60% of the total vote. The second referendum could also include the imposition of compulsory voting, as we have in Australia.
If politicians cannot agree on what is sensible, then they are not sensible people and the population will suffer as a result.
-
Jeremy,
We are making decisions every day that are influenced by the quality and accuracy of the information we receive, whether by advertising, scientific research, economic assessments, and so on.
Our decisions on any issue are also influenced by our own likes, dislikes, and biases. There are very few of us who are unbiased. I have a very strong bias towards being unbiased, for example. ;D
In any democratic voting system there is presumably always a margin of error due to a misunderstanding of the issues presented to the voters. I'm fairly confident if another referendum on Brexit were organised, many of those who had voted for Brexit in the first referendum, would change their mind and vote to remain in the EU.
However, in order to justify a second referendum, the point has to be made by the parliament that the referendum process needs amending, so the second referendum should include a referendum on the size of the majority. If 66.7% seems too large, then make it 60% of the total vote. The second referendum could also include the imposition of compulsory voting, as we have in Australia.
If politicians cannot agree on what is sensible, then they are not sensible people and the population will suffer as a result.
I agree with that point, and believe it to be reflected in the result of the local election a day or two ago where both majors got their ass kicked hard. The only clear difference was that the Libs came back from breakfast with Lazarus because they stood as unequivocally remain people - apart from the Scots Nats, of course, who already have a party with two items on the agenda: separation from England and continued membership within Europe...
Their sudden revival (Libs) would perhaps have been even greater if voters had been able to use the opportunity as a unique way of saying lets remain, but it would have meant transferring/betraying? their traditional party loyalties, if even for a strategic moment. That is always a hard thing to do. But abstaining is no answer either, just a fudge.
-
I agree with that point, and believe it to be reflected in the result of the local election a day or two ago where both majors got their ass kicked hard. The only clear difference was that the Libs came back from breakfast with Lazarus because they stood as unequivocally remain people - apart from the Scots Nats, of course, who already have a party with two items on the agenda: separation from England and continued membership within Europe...
Their sudden revival (Libs) would perhaps have been even greater if voters had been able to use the opportunity as a unique way of saying lets remain, but it would have meant transferring/betraying? their traditional party loyalties, if even for a strategic moment. That is always a hard thing to do. But abstaining is no answer either, just a fudge.
Rob,
I would like to add that I see a problem in having a second referendum under the same rules as the first referendum. Suppose the 2nd referendum results in a 51.9% majority in favour of remaining. The Brexiteers could then justifiably claim an undemocratic lack of fairness if the government were to take action on the 2nd referendum in preference to the first, and the confusion and indecision might then persist.
There needs to be a change in the law regarding referendums, such as, either a double majority or a significant overall majority.To combine these issues into one referendum might be too messy. If so, then two referendums might be required. The first one to change the rules.
In the meantime, the UK should remain in the EU on the grounds that the first referendum was flawed and subject to a lot of misinformation.
-
Rob,
I would like to add that I see a problem in having a second referendum under the same rules as the first referendum. Suppose the 2nd referendum results in a 51.9% majority in favour of remaining. The Brexiteers could then justifiably claim an undemocratic lack of fairness if the government were to take action on the 2nd referendum in preference to the first, and the confusion and indecision might then persist.
There needs to be a change in the law regarding referendums, such as, either a double majority or a significant overall majority.To combine these issues into one referendum might be too messy. If so, then two referendums might be required. The first one to change the rules.
In the meantime, the UK should remain in the EU on the grounds that the first referendum was flawed and subject to a lot of misinformation.
Yes, and perhaps the best way is to adopt the numbers rules as laid down by some respected, but non-European Union country just to remove the inevitable screams of fixed!
The silly thing is, the MPs could have squashed this right at the start by pointing out in Parliament that it wasn't a compulsory referendum, just a testing of the waters thing that had made a point of sorts.
Considering the only thing they could agree on was that they couldn't accept a no-deal vote, it seems strange they didn't get their heads together right away and nip it in the bud.
-
Did anyone see the two BBC4 programmes on Brexit, as seen by the fly on the wall on the European side?
Fascinating stuff, revealing the utter lack of comprehension at the reality-denying postures and repeated demands for club benefits without remaining club members.
May must have either a hide of brass or several human traits missing. I would have been too embarrassed repeatedly to demand what cannot be given, for reasons told her over and over again. Just like a child, then.
Rob
-
The new royal baby seems to have taken over the headlines for the moment...
-
The new royal baby seems to have taken over the headlines for the .moment...
I wonder if it will have dual citizenship? That could prove an interesting situation.
Rob
-
I wonder if it will have dual citizenship? That could prove an interesting situation.
Oh, the irony: being able to travel freely across the Ocean, to the Land of the Free, but not across the Channel, to the Land of the Caliphate (soon) ;)
-
Depending on the tax treaty in place he best have a good tax lawyer (US Citizen = US Tax..) ;)
-
Depending on the tax treaty in place he best have a good tax lawyer (US Citizen = US Tax..) ;)
Don't panic: it'll be kept in his Dad's name; they're sure to get it covered. There is precedent with US connections: think Mrs Simpson. Let's hope this one works out less painfully.
;-)
-
Did anyone see the two BBC4 programmes on Brexit, as seen by the fly on the wall on the European side?
Fascinating stuff, revealing the utter lack of comprehension at the reality-denying postures and repeated demands for club benefits without remaining club members.
Agreed, very interesting. It showed just what a shambles the UK government has been over the issue.
Meanwhile on Twitter the brexiters are saying it shows how terrible the EU are being to the UK. It's so sad to see people become so entrenched in a position that they're no longer capable of having any objectivity.
-
Verhofstadt was in London yesterday and stopped to meet Mr Stop Brexit.
-
Verhofstadt was in London yesterday and stopped to meet Mr Stop Brexit.
I cant see Verhofstadt's presence on the scene being to anybody's benefit, least of all the Remain side.
https://www.thepressproject.gr/article/62406/Guy-Verhofstadt-the-EU-President-and-the-bid-for-Greek-water
-
I suspect the TV coverage may affect anti-Brexit voter turnout more than obscure Greek web sites.
-
Agreed, very interesting. It showed just what a shambles the UK government has been over the issue.
Meanwhile on Twitter the brexiters are saying it shows how terrible the EU are being to the UK. It's so sad to see people become so entrenched in a position that they're no longer capable of having any objectivity.
But then, where can the UK negotiating side be but in a mess? It understands the madness of the position it's meant to represent, but is stuck with the tiny majority of a vote that pushed it there against its own common sense. Parliament shows how it regrets the silly, emotional voter decision every time it rejects a new dumb deal variant; it simply isn't ready for suicide.
It demonstrates the folly of putting such vital decisions into the hands of the uninformed public - on both sides of that divide. None of us - or almost none of us - has access to documentation and information beyond what we hear on the news, see on tv or read in the partisan, numbers-obsessed press, and hear from politicians betting one side against the other. All we can know for sure is how much we lose by throwing out that baby with all its dirty nappies; we just get left with an empty cot and a dead house.
-
But then, where can the UK negotiating side be but in a mess? It understands the madness of the position it's meant to represent, but is stuck with the tiny majority of a vote that pushed it there against its own common sense. Parliament shows how it regrets the silly, emotional voter decision every time it rejects a new dumb deal variant; it simply isn't ready for suicide.
It demonstrates the folly of putting such vital decisions into the hands of the uninformed public - on both sides of that divide. None of us - or almost none of us - has access to documentation and information beyond what we hear on the news, see on tv or read in the partisan, numbers-obsessed press, and hear from politicians betting one side against the other. All we can know for sure is how much we lose by throwing out that baby with all its dirty nappies; we just get left with an empty cot and a dead house.
The American founders of our Constitution were so fearful of the common man and their democratic vote, they only gave the individual vote to the selection of representatives to Congress. Senators were voted by the legislatures of each of the States. And Electors voted for the president. The founders knew that if the vote was given to the individuals, they would "break the bank"., which they are in the process of doing since the individual vote was given for Senators and the President when the COnstitution was amended. Good or bad, we're stuck with it as apparently you are with Brexit.
So now that May is leaving, where is Britain going?
-
..l So now that May is leaving, where is Britain going?
Into June, like everyone else.
-
Or as the investors say - Sell in May and go away
-
“The Brexit Party came first while explicitly pro-EU parties - the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Change UK - were, combined, a few percentage points behind.”
-
“The Brexit Party came first while explicitly pro-EU parties - the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Change UK - were, combined, a few percentage points behind.”
Which explains perfectly why those about to be executed ask for a big last supper.
Rob
-
“The Brexit Party came first while explicitly pro-EU parties - the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Change UK - were, combined, a few percentage points behind.”
That's sort of what might have been predicted!
-
That's sort of what might have been predicted!
Madmen and demagogues. I'm not expecting a happy result to this nightmare. I suspect that in large part it's a problem all Western democracies now face: a substantial rump of ageing voters who will block anything which threatens their way of life even though a changing world has rendered it no longer tenable and coming at the cost of damaging the life chances of everyone else. The next leader of the Conservative Party and therefore the next Prime Minister will be chosen by the party's membership, about 100,000 people with an average age of 72 and a totally unrepresentative demographic. This isn't democracy but extremism.
-
That's sort of what might have been predicted!
Really!?
I thought that all that clamoring for a second referendum would result in a crushing defeat for the Leave, no?
-
..l This isn't democracy but extremism.
Yes, indeed. Democracy should be redefined. Apparently, the demos has hijacked democracy. Shocking. What democracy needs instead is enlightened, urban, elite Young Turks leading the sheep.
-
I all seems very democratic to me. There are about 7 or 8 different parties representing all sorts of different viewpoints. Unlike America where there are only two parties.
-
Madmen and demagogues. I'm not expecting a happy result to this nightmare. I suspect that in large part it's a problem all Western democracies now face: a substantial rump of ageing voters who will block anything which threatens their way of life even though a changing world has rendered it no longer tenable and coming at the cost of damaging the life chances of everyone else. The next leader of the Conservative Party and therefore the next Prime Minister will be chosen by the party's membership, about 100,000 people with an average age of 72 and a totally unrepresentative demographic. This isn't democracy but extremism.
The Nation-State trumps Europeanism. The EU should have stayed an economic and trade compact only rather than trying to enforce common political standards on everyone without true democratic oversight. The average German cares little about the average Italian who cares little about the average Spaniard who cares little about.... Each country and patriot want to make their own rules for their nation.
-
I agree, and even within the like-minded groups of parties, there is no strict discipline that demands unanimous voting behavior on topics, so each member can vote as he/she sees fit. So it's a reasonable 1:1 reflection of the number of popular votes.
Cheers,
Bart
One thing I failed to mention is that while there are two major parties in the US, each of the 50 States are sovereign. They each have their own constitution, legislatures, Governors, police departments, military reserves, justice and court systems, criminal and civil penalties, rules and regulations that each state's citizens vote for regarding many of the regular things about how we live day-to-day. It's more personal. There are also local ordinances and laws especially in major towns and cities. Where I live in New Jersey, we recently voted down a bond to pay to build a new local school. So people feel they have a stake in politics. That's good for democracy.
-
I all seems very democratic to me. There are about 7 or 8 different parties representing all sorts of different viewpoints. Unlike America where there are only two parties.
I think you’ve misread my post. That was about the death-grip of the domestic two-party system on the eventual outcome of the Brexit process which will be decided in the British Parliament. The European elections aren’t about that. They are about electing people to a pan-European parliament elsewhere. So where it matters, there are still only two main parties here as in the USA. That may not hold for much longer but it certainly does today.
-
Really!?
I thought that all that clamoring for a second referendum would result in a crushing defeat for the Leave, no?
More complicated than that - this was not a referendum on a single issue.
-
I think you’ve misread my post. That was about the death-grip of the domestic two-party system on the eventual outcome of the Brexit process which will be decided in the British Parliament. The European elections aren’t about that. They are about electing people to a pan-European parliament elsewhere. So where it matters, there are still only two main parties here as in the USA. That may not hold for much longer but it certainly does today.
The problem with the pan-European parliament is that you have even less to say about how the gnomes in Zurich decide you should live in your own country. Their rules often overrule the parliaments in your own country. How's that democratic? Citizens often feel the don;t have a stake. They're so much chattel to the business interests that care less about national borders and their own people.
-
More complicated than that - this was not a referendum on a single issue.
Nomen est omen. You are saying the party that won doesn't have a single, simple name: Brexit? ;)
-
... the gnomes in Zurich ...
Forgive us, we are Americans ;D
-
The next leader of the Conservative Party and therefore the next Prime Minister . . .
Who, according to the press on this side of the Atlantic, might well be none other than Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Fortunately, the decision won't be made before President Trump attends the D-Day commemoration in Portsmouth next week. Otherwise, assuming it ultimately is Boris, we would be looking forward to the ultimate bad-hair day.
-
The problem with the pan-European parliament is that you have even less to say about how the gnomes in Zurich decide you should live in your own country. Their rules often overrule the parliaments in your own country.
Forget the gnomes in Zurich and blame the unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.
-
Forget the gnomes in Zurich and blame the unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.
Them too! 😉
-
Nomen est omen. You are saying the party that won doesn't have a single, simple name: Brexit? ;)
Sure, but the other 70% voted for parties which actually have policies on topics other than Brexit - for example, how do you interpret the massive vote for Scottish Nationalist Party?
-
The problem with the pan-European parliament is that you have even less to say about how the gnomes in Zurich decide you should live in your own country. Their rules often overrule the parliaments in your own country. How's that democratic? Citizens often feel the don;t have a stake. They're so much chattel to the business interests that care less about national borders and their own people.
That's true, up to a point - it would be better for decisions to be taken locally. Unfortunately we British have shown ourselves to be incapable of doing that in such areas as environmental protection, workers rights and immigration, so it has become regrettably necessary to be part of a wiser organisation.
-
I find the emotional arguments about sovereignty unconvincing. I suspect that all this talk of foreign bureaucrats making rules is hyperbole, that is, the rules they make aren't as onerous as the propaganda states. It sounds like someone is trying very hard to sell something.
I thought this column from Macleans is a good summary of the current situation, minus the distractions https://www.macleans.ca/politics/theresa-mays-hard-exit/. (https://www.macleans.ca/politics/theresa-mays-hard-exit/)
-
I find the emotional arguments about sovereignty unconvincing. I suspect that all this talk of foreign bureaucrats making rules is hyperbole, that is, the rules they make aren't as onerous as the propaganda states. It sounds like someone is trying very hard to sell something.
Indeed - and especially unconvincing when you realise that architect of Brexit Nigel Farage is the one who was AWOL from his position on the EU Fisheries commission when the decisions now complained about were being taken.
-
I suspect that all this talk of foreign bureaucrats making rules is hyperbole, that is, the rules they make aren't as onerous as the propaganda states.
It's just plain wrong. Only a very tiny fraction of EU regulation has been opposed by the UK, the vast majority of it is to the UK's advantage or doesn't effect us anyway.
Ill-informed people still fail to understand what an enormously privileged and influential position the UK has/had within the EU.
Little mention is made of our ability to regulate other member states to our advantage via EU regulation that we make a major contribution to.
I thought this column from Macleans is a good summary of the current situation,
Interesting and generally good, but looks only at trading goods. What will hit the UK very hard is the reduction in trade in services to the EU and much of that damage is under way now as the financial industry steadily moves it's resources and trading bases away from the UK into the EU. Already the loss of tax revenue from the finance industry is greater than our EU contributions.
-
There's a belief that one of the original driving forces of the raison d'être of the Union was to bind countries so close together that war, an endemic disease in Europe, might be rendered impossible.
Were it not for the African/mid-eastern problems of migration, I am sure non of this shit would have gone down. In the street, you can't tell a Brit from a Pole from a German (should the three be blondes) but the ones from outwith Europe are easy to spot. The UK problems started way before the Common Market was even a cold, wet dream down in somebody's pyjamas. It began with Empire, cats, just as in the US you had slavery. Son pays for Dad's mistakes. It's biblical and visibly true.
That becomes the most easy and convenient trigger to touch when you want to find something to advance your personal political ambitions. And boy, did some of those bastards lie! And worse, few of their followers seem to care, even though they probably know the inconvenient truth. The power of thought does not imply that folks also think.
-
In the street, you can't tell a Brit from a Pole
Yes you can, especially so when you hear them speak.
Try getting out off your Med island bubble and visiting some of the eastern counties of England where there is a lot of eastern European immigration. Then you'll see and hear why so many people voted for brexit there.
Unfortunately far too many of those brexit voters aren't understanding the overall impact and benefits of freedom of movement and fail to see why remaining in the EU gives them a general benefit.
-
That's true, up to a point - it would be better for decisions to be taken locally. Unfortunately we British have shown ourselves to be incapable of doing that in such areas as environmental protection, workers rights and immigration, so it has become regrettably necessary to be part of a wiser organisation.
So you're willing to give up your vote for some perceived advantage?
It was the American patriot Benjamin Franklin who said that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-
...Unfortunately far too many of those brexit voters aren't understanding the overall impact and benefits of freedom of movement and fail to see why remaining in the EU gives them a general benefit.
A vast majority of Brits do not move nor are interested in it. Nor are interested in suffering the consequences of indulging a few of their globalist compatriots.
-
Yes you can, especially so when you hear them speak.
Try getting out off your Med island bubble and visiting some of the eastern counties of England where there is a lot of eastern European immigration. Then you'll see and hear why so many people voted for brexit there.
Unfortunately far too many of those brexit voters aren't understanding the overall impact and benefits of freedom of movement and fail to see why remaining in the EU gives them a general benefit.
I suspect they mainly understand what they may lose. But they don;t want Germans, Dutch, and other foreigners deciding how they should live. In any case, why not just eliminate the EU rules regarding things political? Set it up, so that only trade and economic relations are implemented. The political issues should be left to each of the member nations to decide in their own country. It would be something like the North America trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and the US, formerly call NAFTA now called USMCA. Just like there is no country called North America, there is no country called Europe. Culture, language, history, customs, war, land, climate, etc separate one EU nation from the other. Viva la difference.
-
A vast majority of Brits do not move nor are interested in it. Nor are interested in suffering the consequences of indulging a few of their globalist compatriots.
They aren't suffering - EU immigration has a positive economic effect. Unless you consider hearing foreign accents a negative consequence, of course?
-
In any case, why not just eliminate the EU rules regarding things political?
Can you give some examples?
-
They aren't suffering - EU immigration has a positive economic effect. Unless you consider hearing foreign accents a negative consequence, of course?
Who’s to say they aren’t? That’s exactly the kind or elitist, patronizing, and condescending attitude that drives people to Brexit - telling them how they must feel. If they feel they are, they are, rightly or wrongly (in your or my opinion). Besides, it is the immigration from outside the E.U. that matters more today.
-
They aren't suffering - EU immigration has a positive economic effect.
For whom?
Lower prices have negative economical benefit if it coincides with losing your job.
Like I said earlier: that benefit is only applicable if you have nine wealthy nations and add a tenth. Not if you add 25 countries of questionable economic and sociocultural ethos.
-
Who’s to say they aren’t? That’s exactly the kind or elitist, patronizing, and condescending attitude that drives people to Brexit - telling them how they must feel. If they feel they are, they are, rightly or wrongly (in your or my opinion). Besides, it is the immigration from outside the E.U. that matters more today.
I specifically mentioned the economic impact - which is easier to measure than other effects. For me it's also positive that the many Eastern Europeans I come across in a personal and professional context are good people, even if their passport has weird spelling.
As for non-EU immigrants, your view are well-known here, but not really relevant to a discussion of Brexit.
-
For whom?
For the country as a whole. If the central govt chooses to trouser that money rather than invest it in say, hospitals and schools, or invest in business, that's another matter, which can be addressed without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
-
For the country as a whole. If the central govt chooses to trouser that money rather than invest it in say, hospitals and schools, or invest in business, that's another matter, which can be addressed without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
No, not at all. It leads to a wider divide between the haves and have nots. The cheaper craftsmen from the poorer nations benefit from the freedom of movement because they can significantly undercut the local prices in the richer nations. This leads to cheaper prices, but at the same time the average local craftsperson loses his job. The only people benefiting are company owners who hired that cheaper labor and do EU subsidised government contracts. Hence, the rich just get richer, the poor no longer manage to make ends meet.
And yes, that was a generalisation by example, but illustrates the source of unrest reasonably well, imo.
-
No, not at all. It leads to a wider divide between the haves and have nots. The cheaper craftsmen from the poorer nations benefit from the freedom of movement because they can significantly undercut the local prices in the richer nations. This leads to cheaper prices, but at the same time the average local craftsperson loses his job. The only people benefiting are company owners who hired that cheaper labor and do EU subsidised government contracts. Hence, the rich just get richer, the poor no longer manage to make ends meet.
And yes, that was a generalisation by example, but illustrates the source of unrest reasonably well, imo.
The unrest arises because the govt does not address the impact of the new labour. If some of the economic windfall were used to create new opportunities for local people, the problem would not arise. Also, of course, those immigrants also create jobs and spend money. This is really the heart of the support for brexit, isn't it? - poor areas have been systematically neglected by the Tory govt; as usual, immigrants are a scapegoat.
-
No, not at all. It leads to a wider divide between the haves and have nots. The cheaper craftsmen from the poorer nations benefit from the freedom of movement because they can significantly undercut the local prices in the richer nations. This leads to cheaper prices, but at the same time the average local craftsperson loses his job. The only people benefiting are company owners who hired that cheaper labor and do EU subsidised government contracts. Hence, the rich just get richer, the poor no longer manage to make ends meet. And yes, that was a generalisation by example, but illustrates the source of unrest reasonably well, imo.
This is where the overall general benefit is outweighed by a direct detriment with some (many) voters. The policy drives down prices but drives down wages as well.
-
I don't think I have heard a real solution how to address the problem of the North-Irish Border?
Has any one here a workable solution?
-
I don't think I have heard a real solution how to address the problem of the North-Irish Border?
Has any one here a workable solution?
It's pretty simple, both sides stay in the EU (along with the rest of the UK). It's provided a lot of stability and peace in recent years. It's also the most acceptable solution to both countries now.
It really is only a minority of 'little Englanders' that want brexit.
-
I don't think I have heard a real solution how to address the problem of the North-Irish Border?
Has any one here a workable solution?
You can't resolve it unless one country that is within the Union is allowed, by both sides, to become an open border to all the things that have poured through open borders everywhere. If one country does that, then all of them with borders beyond the European Union will demand to be exceptions too, breaking down the point of it all: the binding together in mutual interest that will prevent WW3 starting up in Europe, as did #2 and #1. A brief history check shows the frequency of earlier wars there has been insane.
The only solution that could resolve the N.Ireland issue in its Brexit context would be for NI to turn back the clock and rejoin the south. I believe that the rest of the UK would hold street parties.
The fact that both Europe and the UK government understand the impasse is why there could be no further give and take in negotiations. The fact that the 'teers don't care is measure of the madness in their stance.
Regarding Poles: I have known beauties; Russian models hsve been amongst the most beautiful in this world. My wife and I walked down a local street here in Mallorca trying to guess the nationality of the noisy, unintelligible couple in front of us. Eventually, we realised they were English murdering English! Says it all, perhaps. Maybe they were from England's eastern counties? :-)
-
It's pretty simple, both sides stay in the EU (along with the rest of the UK). It's provided a lot of stability and peace in recent years. It's also the most acceptable solution to both countries now.
It really is only a minority of 'little Englanders' that want brexit.
That is the ideal solution, for which I would vote.
-
That is the ideal solution, for which I would vote.
Significantly, it's what they voted for too.
-
It really is only a minority of 'little Englanders' that want brexit.
If 17.1m is but a minority of "little Englanders" (a sneering, derogatory term), there must be an awful lot of them somewhere.
Jeremy
-
Significantly, it's what they voted for too.
Quite right as the voting results by country within the UK well demonstrated: https://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results One is left to wonder if a Hard Brexit goes through whether the UK will survive. Scotland has already had one vote for independence and it's easy to see another coming up quickly. The Irish on both sides of the Island's border want it to remain open. Don't know much about the sentiment in Wales.
-
If 17.1m is but a minority of "little Englanders" (a sneering, derogatory term), there must be an awful lot of them somewhere.
Jeremy
The number you cite is for the total pro-Brexit vote and includes N. Ireland, Scotland, and Wales all of whom voted against leaving but they of course get swamped out by the much larger English population. This is according to the official votes as reported by the BBC.
-
Who’s to say they aren’t? That’s exactly the kind or elitist, patronizing, and condescending attitude that drives people to Brexit - telling them how they must feel. If they feel they are, they are, rightly or wrongly (in your or my opinion). Besides, it is the immigration from outside the E.U. that matters more today.
Exactly, Slobodan, and that immigration has nothing to do with being within Europe! It's a popular fallacy as well as potent political ammunition to conflate; Britain isn't even party to the Schengen deal. No European country really wants them; the trick is in being honest enough to tell them to stay at home and fight their own domestic fights rather than escape and resolve nothing back at their own ranch. However appealing that may be to governments, they can't, because of the way it would be presented and distorted at home, and another party of a diferent colour would attack on that front, whilst privately thanking God somebody else had done it for them.
-
No, not at all. It leads to a wider divide between the haves and have nots. The cheaper craftsmen from the poorer nations benefit from the freedom of movement because they can significantly undercut the local prices in the richer nations. This leads to cheaper prices, but at the same time the average local craftsperson loses his job. The only people benefiting are company owners who hired that cheaper labor and do EU subsidised government contracts. Hence, the rich just get richer, the poor no longer manage to make ends meet.
And yes, that was a generalisation by example, but illustrates the source of unrest reasonably well, imo.
Well, price of labour issues are double-sided weapons. Unions have fought for generations to reach some reasonable consensus on wages for those mainly blue-collar skills, and if employers were obliged to recruit and pay at set, industry-wide rates, things would become acceptable and accent irrelevant. Thing is, you could then discover that buying strawberries becomes too expensive for your wallet or mine, that going to hospital meant a family member had to come with you and make your bed, change your dressings and clean out your bedpan; many hotels and restaurants would then have to become Michelin-priced and still serve up slop.
The rich getting richer depends largely on where you draw the line defining richness. If you mean big companies, they take big risks, too, and create the work that employs the rest of us less gifted in the art of making money. Nobody got rich by being stupid, and that includes lottery winners, for they at least understood that you had to be in it to win it.
If you refer to the Facebook moguls, then thank those who use their services: I never have, so their activities remains outside my sphere of interest beyond the fact that I disagree with their platforms that permit communications between criminals. Their taxes, however, should be paid wherever they raise the revenue.
-
"little Englanders" (a sneering, derogatory term
Well if 'derogatory' many of them wouldn't see it that way. They're loud and proud about their 'Englishness'.
If 17.1m is but a minority of
A lot of that number have either died, given up or realised their error. More people petitioned for revoking brexit than voted for the brexit 'party'
-
So you're willing to give up your vote for some perceived advantage?
It was the American patriot Benjamin Franklin who said that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Alan, it must be the time difference and you are tired: nobody is giving up a vote. If anything, we have more voting opportunities now than ever: we have local elections, national elections and even European elections where we can exercise our franchise. Well, you can extend that to referendums, too, should you feel so inclined.
Throwing red herrings into the mix doesn't help anyone understand the situation any the better.
-
... As for non-EU immigrants, your view are well-known here, but not really relevant to a discussion of Brexit.
How is it not relevant for Brexit!? It is precisely the influx of non-EU immigrants (or the fear of the future one) that is the main driver behind Brexit.
-
Exactly, Slobodan, and that immigration has nothing to do with being within Europe!..
Except for Frau Merkel assigning quotas of Trojan Horses to all other EU countries.
-
Well, price of labour issues are double-sided weapons.
I was thinking about local entrepreneurs. For example, a local constructioncompany. They already have the infrastructure in place to hire e.g. carpenters depending on project availability. Poland happens to have extremely cheap yet very capable carpenters and constructionworkers. It's very easy for company owners to reap the benefit of freedom of movement, while a local craftsman with no desire or even ability to run a company of his own is now facing a rather unbalanced form of competition.
The money that those Polish craftsmen earn does not suffice to do anything beneficial in the UK itself and generally travels straight back home to the family in Poland. For the record I would like to add that the price of real estate doesn't seem to have suffered any downward trend as a result of cheaper construction options, if I may say so with the greatest possible restrained sarcasme.
-
Alan, it must be the time difference and you are tired: nobody is giving up a vote. If anything, we have more voting opportunities now than ever: we have local elections, national elections and even European elections where we can exercise our franchise. Well, you can extend that to referendums, too, should you feel so inclined.
Throwing red herrings into the mix doesn't help anyone understand the situation any the better.
Why trust non-British Europeans to take care of your welfare, people who really don;t care about Brits or anyone else for that matter? They are only concerned with business interests and an oxymoron of common "European nationalism". You're giving up your liberty to decide national policies expecting to gain some security from their rule. Why would you trust them rather then yourselves? How can your expect EU bureaucrats in Brussels to know or care what the Brits or any other individual nation desires? And how does local parliamentary rule in each nation override rule from Brussels. Your PM's in British parliament that you voted for can;t represent you. The whole mess seems contradictory.
-
Why trust non-British Europeans to take care of your welfare, people who really don;t care about Brits or anyone else for that matter?
That's a dark and quite worrying assessment of human nature.
-
That's a dark and quite worrying assessment of human nature.
WWI and WWII was enlightened as was the Cold War.
-
Quite right as the voting results by country within the UK well demonstrated: https://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results One is left to wonder if a Hard Brexit goes through whether the UK will survive. Scotland has already had one vote for independence and it's easy to see another coming up quickly. The Irish on both sides of the Island's border want it to remain open. Don't know much about the sentiment in Wales.
I believe that the risk of an eventual breaking up of the UK is not a concern to Boris and his band of merry bears; the lands that lie outwith the M25 boundary are probably still seen as redolent of monsters, mists and unicorns, and fit only for hunting and fishing. In some ways, if I'm right on that point, so, to a certain degree is he. But hey, which of those ardent, political Brexit leaders is poor, or even of normal middle-class status? They are all wealthy cats who don't need to soil their hands doing anything they don't want to do. Job security in the workshop means nothing to them; capital can find a home anywhere in the world it wants to find one. What means everything is ego and that goddam thing about place in history. Even Jack the Ripper got one.
I sort of deduce that for those working in the London area and able to vote there, it means they are successful enough to be able to afford to live there. Many in far-flung regions don't have anything like the same earning power which also is geared to the cost of living in their region, so in some ways, everybody born without a silver lisp is still in pretty similar straits: work in London and you have to earn a fortune to afford to live there, leaving you with how much more in actual savings than has your opposite number in a low-cost town? The massive difference happens when you have had enough, sell the expensive house you slaved to buy in London and transfer yourself to the outer world, and at once find yourself immensely richer than those who always lived in that distant place.
As for the UK surviving - it will probably end up doing as the startlingly new face of the European elections is going to force those elected to do: attempt to create new alliances, just as the old structures of medieval Europe alway did. What a helluva lot of trouble folks will have to go through to try and get back to some form of what they already had.
-
Why trust non-British Europeans to take care of your welfare, people who really don;t care about Brits or anyone else for that matter? They are only concerned with business interests and an oxymoron of common "European nationalism". You're giving up your liberty to decide national policies expecting to gain some security from their rule. Why would you trust them rather then yourselves? How can your expect EU bureaucrats in Brussels to know or care what the Brits or any other individual nation desires? And how does local parliamentary rule in each nation override rule from Brussels. Your PM's in British parliament that you voted for can;t represent you. The whole mess seems contradictory.
Alan, you are grossly over-imagining the extent or allowed extent of centralised edicts.
What makes you imagine that one's own politicians care one iota more about anyone else than they do of themselves? Turn your eyes to your own country and ask yourself whether your poor are better off than the poor of Europe? I'd rather fall ill in Britain, France, Spain or any of those European Union countries than do so in America! I probably can't even afford to buy the medical insurance for a holiday trip there, should such a trip appeal to me! Take Britain out of that Union and I'm reduced to a life in one country at worst, and perhaps two at most - if Spain feels generous and doesn't kick me out or make me pay what overnight becomes unpayable. And no, I am far from destitute, thanks. Private health insurance, when we quit almost eleven years ago, was rushing me € 3600 p.a. God knows what it would cost me at my age today, if it was even possible to get anyone to offer it. And I am far, far from being alone; it's one unavoidable result of living into old age: you stop being an income and turn into an expenditure, at which moment you are surplus to requirements.
-
And I am far, far from being alone; it's one unavoidable result of living into old age: you stop being an income and turn into an expenditure, at which moment you are surplus to requirements.
Acutally, it has nothing to do with living into an old age, and everything to do with choosing to live abroad. It would be the same for me if I wanted to retire in the south of France. My Medicare wouldn't follow me.
-
Alan, you are grossly over-imagining the extent or allowed extent of centralised edicts.
What makes you imagine that one's own politicians care one iota more about anyone else than they do of themselves? Turn your eyes to your own country and ask yourself whether your poor are better off than the poor of Europe? I'd rather fall ill in Britain, France, Spain or any of those European Union countries than do so in America! I probably can't even afford to buy the medical insurance for a holiday trip there, should such a trip appeal to me! Take Britain out of that Union and I'm reduced to a life in one country at worst, and perhaps two at most - if Spain feels generous and doesn't kick me out or make me pay what overnight becomes unpayable. And no, I am far from destitute, thanks. Private health insurance, when we quit almost eleven years ago, was rushing me € 3600 p.a. God knows what it would cost me at my age today, if it was even possible to get anyone to offer it. And I am far, far from being alone; it's one unavoidable result of living into old age: you stop being an income and turn into an expenditure, at which moment you are surplus to requirements.
Health care has nothing to do with this. The EU rules on immigration are paramount, apparently. Individual countries have little to say. This area seems to be the biggest bone of contention for Brexiteers, Italians, etc. It effects minimum wages, who works especially at the lower end, and most importantly effects the traditional makeup of each country's heritage. Even here in America, a country of immigrants, immigration issues have become major political arguments. I can imagine how sensitive heritage is in nations of Europe where immigration had heretofore been a minor happenstance.
-
Health care has nothing to do with this. The EU rules on immigration are paramount, apparently.
Health care, it's funding and how it's accessed, is right at the centre of the brexit debate.
If you don't understand this maybe you should refrain from further comments on the issue.
-
The EU rules on immigration are paramount, apparently. Individual countries have little to say.
This is not true, despite what you might hear from the various pro-Brexit demagogues. Individual countries are free to impose a wide range of controls on immigration. One of the issues is that Britain CHOSE NOT TO.
-
Health care has nothing to do with this.
Brexiteer-in-chief Nigel Farage proposes that post-Brexit the UK health care system be run via insurance. He is bankrolled by Arron Banks, a wealthy man with various connections to Russia and the owner of ... insurance companies! Surprise !!!
-
I was thinking about local entrepreneurs. For example, a local constructioncompany. They already have the infrastructure in place to hire e.g. carpenters depending on project availability. Poland happens to have extremely cheap yet very capable carpenters and constructionworkers. It's very easy for company owners to reap the benefit of freedom of movement, while a local craftsman with no desire or even ability to run a company of his own is now facing a rather unbalanced form of competition.
The money that those Polish craftsmen earn does not suffice to do anything beneficial in the UK itself and generally travels straight back home to the family in Poland. For the record I would like to add that the price of real estate doesn't seem to have suffered any downward trend as a result of cheaper construction options, if I may say so with the greatest possible restrained sarcasme.
My own anecdotal evidence is that Polish workmen show up on time, do a good job, clean up after themselves and don't charge a King's ransom, while Polish professionals are well educated and conscientious. The money they earn is taxed and what is left is spent in shops, as well as sent home, as you say.
-
The number you cite is for the total pro-Brexit vote and includes N. Ireland, Scotland, and Wales all of whom voted against leaving but they of course get swamped out by the much larger English population. This is according to the official votes as reported by the BBC.
It's often a good idea to look at sources before citing them. Wales voted to leave by a larger margin than the UK as a whole, as reported by the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results).
Jeremy
-
My own anecdotal evidence is that Polish workmen show up on time, do a good job, clean up after themselves and don't charge a King's ransom, while Polish professionals are well educated and conscientious. The money they earn is taxed and what is left is spent in shops, as well as sent home, as you say.
Absolutely, and mind you, I have nothing against Poland or its people.
-
Acutally, it has nothing to do with living into an old age, and everything to do with choosing to live abroad. It would be the same for me if I wanted to retire in the south of France. My Medicare wouldn't follow me.
My reference is to private medical care: insurance. That was what was costing € 3600 in the last year of keeping it. Age, of course, is the factor that usually kills off your earning ability, mine being photography dependent. I thought I had that one covered with stock, but it turned out to be a false sense of security. Age is also the time when nature makes you more dependent on medical care. I had two heart attacks on private medicine care after hitting 65, and my late wife several cancer ops.
Chosing to live abroad is not a sin, though there is the mindset that sees it as exactly that, and to make it worse, an escape from an environment many others, could they but, would gladly opt to make as well. Inevitably, this raises envy and associated hatreds.
Your Medicare is a separate issue: as far as I can tell, you were never in an international arrangement where such was possible; we were and, for the time being, still are. As you raised it first, I feel I must ask the question: given similar choices, would the South of France not perhaps have felt to be an attractive option, whether or not you chose actually to take it up?
That is a very important aspect of the entire mess: everyone in Britain, had they wanted to, had that opportunity for mobility and thousands enjoy its fruits every day. Now, that will probably be rescinded, and for what? For the satisfaction of a bunch of bigoted, self-serving and lying politicians seeking their place in the history books; you must understand that in Britain, every outgoing prime minister is saddled with media assessments of his/her legacy: it has become a parlour game. What is legacy? Apart from Churchill and, possibly, Thatcher, few latter day ones have actually made any real, positive mark on the national destiny.
Do you think Farage or Boris would turn their miserable backs on a place in that historical archive, even as lowly and negative a one as Guy Fawkes?
As for the financial benefits of leaving - there are none. Existing trade must inevitably suffer, jobs in manufacturing lost if only because of the system of parts being shipped to and fro across open borders in just-in-time manufacturing work flows. When borders reappear, customs controls re-established, checks made on everything (otherwise, what's the point of them?) that passes, it becomes counter-productive and expensive having factories spead across a continent. Anybody imagine the work will suddenly be concentrated within an external, and small part of the market? Unbelievably, there are guys in British car plants thinking exactly that. Well, they were, until recent Japanes decisions changed the landscape, but instead of accepting they were mistaken they now say hey, let them go! We will survive! Producing exactly what, may I ask?
It is impossible to get into any branch of this topic without being affected by the ramifications of each such on all of the rest.
Mega mess.
-
Your Medicare is a separate issue: as far as I can tell, you were never in an international arrangement where such was possible; we were and, for the time being, still are. As you raised it fist, I feel I must ask the question: given similar choices, would the South of France not perhaps have felt to be an attractive option, whether or not you chose actually to take it up?
The analogy is sort of - what if retired people in Florida suddenly found that they had no right to live there, and no medical coverage there, and were expected to return home to Michigan, or wherever?
-
The analogy is sort of - what if retired people in Florida suddenly found that they had no right to live there, and no medical coverage there, and were expected to return home to Michigan, or wherever?
Very good one!
And that it was brought about because if a bunch of leaders looking to join the list of notables such as Lincoln, not even on merit, but just via notoriety. Not about to raise any diversionary, ginger herrings here, but you know what I mean.
Rob
-
Health care has nothing to do with this. The EU rules on immigration are paramount, apparently. Individual countries have little to say. This area seems to be the biggest bone of contention for Brexiteers, Italians, etc. It effects minimum wages, who works especially at the lower end, and most importantly effects the traditional makeup of each country's heritage. Even here in America, a country of immigrants, immigration issues have become major political arguments. I can imagine how sensitive heritage is in nations of Europe where immigration had heretofore been a minor happenstance.
Dream on, invent your own distant version of British reality.
The biggest lie and most powerful slogan that the Brexiteer camp put foward during the lead to the vote was this: leaving the European Community would deliver 350 million pounds per week to the British National Health Service.
On the day - or the one following - that they'd won their f1/50mm DOF @ 3ft-slim majority, Farage admitted that claim had been a "mistake". (I will never accept that admission was for any other reason than to stick it into the eye of the opposite camp, letting them know, publicly, they'd been beaten by a lie. Irresistible.) Along with xenophobia led by posters showing queues of non-white people marching towards the camera, also fibs, as those migrants never made our shores, other than a few poor sods risking life under trucks - illegal migrants, please note - the entire thing was based on exciting the emotion of fear of invasion, one more deadly than one by strength of arms.
Ironically, the same camp now accuses those who point out the industrial chaos that must ensue if Brexit happens, especially without a deal, of being fear-mongers!
I smell the morality of the abattoir.
-
My reference is to private medical care: insurance. That was what was costing € 3600 in the last year of keeping it. Age, of course, is the factor that usually kills off your earning ability, mine being photography dependent. I thought I had that one covered with stock, but it turned out to be a false sense of security. Age is also the time when nature makes you more dependent on medical care. I had two heart attacks on private medicine care after hitting 65, and my late wife several cancer ops.
Chosing to live abroad is not a sin, though there is the mindset that sees it as exactly that, and to make it worse, an escape from an environment many others, could they but, would gladly opt to make as well. Inevitably, this raises envy and associated hatreds.
Your Medicare is a separate issue: as far as I can tell, you were never in an international arrangement where such was possible; we were and, for the time being, still are. As you raised it first, I feel I must ask the question: given similar choices, would the South of France not perhaps have felt to be an attractive option, whether or not you chose actually to take it up?
Our Medicare program only covers health care in the US. If I decide to become an ex-pat and move to the South of France, I am not covered. Additionally, Medicare does not cover everything and one needs to purchase supplemental insurance to minimize costs. Medicare is also not free!!! There are deductibles and co-pays AND a monthly premium that is based on one's retirement earnings. The cost to my wife and I for our Medicare, pharmaceutical coverage, and supplemental insurance is about $15K/year ---- not exactly cheap.
-
It's often a good idea to look at sources before citing them. Wales voted to leave by a larger margin than the UK as a whole, as reported by the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results).
Jeremy
Yup, my mistake. It's interesting that all of Scotland voted to remain as did most of the major metro areas in England. I don't know if they have granular data, but it would be interesting to know the breakdown between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
-
Wales voted to leave by a larger margin than the UK as a whole
Strange considering how much EU cash is pumped into Wales. Still, worse things happened in WWII as they keep reminding us, so I'm sure the people will be happy with their choice. Chin up, lads!!
-
Yup, my mistake. It's interesting that all of Scotland voted to remain as did most of the major metro areas in England. I don't know if they have granular data, but it would be interesting to know the breakdown between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/21/in-northern-ireland-there-is-a-strong-division-in-how-different-ethno-national-groups-voted-in-the-referendum/
Basically Catholic = Remain, Protestant = marginally Leave
-
Our Medicare program only covers health care in the US. If I decide to become an ex-pat and move to the South of France, I am not covered. Additionally, Medicare does not cover everything and one needs to purchase supplemental insurance to minimize costs. Medicare is also not free!!! There are deductibles and co-pays AND a monthly premium that is based on one's retirement earnings. The cost to my wife and I for our Medicare, pharmaceutical coverage, and supplemental insurance is about $15K/year ---- not exactly cheap.
Neither is the UK system free, insofar as it comes out of your national insurance payments which have to be made along with your state pension ones either through your employer making the deductions from your wages or, if self-employed, by you making regular payments. At the time when I was paying, the system was that you filled a booklet with little coupons/stamps every week and paid in that way. Also, depending on earnings, there used to be a percentage added to the annual insurance contributions bill based on whatever you were earning. Eventually, when I moved away, it was possible to pay a lump sum by cheque once a year. Much more convenient.
Where the concept of being free comes into being is at the point of delivery: you don't get flung out of hospital after treatment with a financial albatross of debt around your neck, nor are you refused treatment.
It was the reciprocity deal that allowed Bits to enjoy the same help in Eurpope as do the citizens of the host country, and of couse, the other way around. That's what seems likely to be sunk without trace.
If May's exit proposal deal had been accepted, Brits living abroad would still have been affected to a degree, with health aid restricted to the country of residence. In other words, as I live in Spain, were I wishing to drive to Britain, I would still be covered within Spain, but not when I crossed the border into France. As for Brits on holiday, I think they would have lost that former health goody too under May's deal.
No change was the better option for both expats as for holidaymakers.
-
Neither is the UK system free, insofar as it comes out of your national insurance payments which have to be made along with your state pension ones either through your employer making the deductions from your wages or, if self-employed, by you making regular payments. At the time when I was paying, the system was that you filled a booklet with little coupons/stamps every week and paid in that way. Also, depending on earnings, there used to be a percentage added to the annual insurance contributions bill based on whatever you were earning. Eventually, when I moved away, it was possible to pay a lump sum by cheque once a year. Much more convenient.
During one's working career it is basically the same in the US. One pays both 'tax' for Social Security (pension) and Medicare. However, one continues paying for health care when retired and those premiums are taken out of the Social Security pension payments. In the UK, do you have to pay an NHS fee when you are retired?
-
Ok, so medical is a major issue within the EU rules. I was wrong about that. But why would you want them to regulate your health rather than your own parliament? After all, it's your democratic votes that give guidance to your PM's. Don't you trust your own government? Why would you trust the EU government more?
-
Ok, so medical is a major issue within the EU rules. I was wrong about that. But why would you want them to regulate your health rather than your own parliament? After all, it's your democratic votes that give guidance to your PM's. Don't you trust your own government? Why would you trust the EU government more?
You keep framing this as a sovereignty issue, but it's not clear to me why this would be a factor in the UK any more than anywhere else. Why would Britons find onerous that which the French and Germans (and others) think is just fine? If the loss of sovereignty is a major issue, as you assert, shouldn't they all be trying to "exit"?
-
You keep framing this as a sovereignty issue, but it's not clear to me why this would be a factor in the UK any more than anywhere else....
Splendid Isolation.
-
Splendid Isolation.
Maybe, but I've never thought of France or Germany as shrinking violets in that regard.
-
... that which the French and Germans (and others) think is just fine?...
But of course, the two, who established the EU, managed to achieve what hundreds of years of their wars didn't: to control Europe without a single bullet fired. The two most blood-thirsty, war-waging, occupying powers in Europe in recent history, the new guarantors of peace in Europe? Talk about putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. No one sees the irony?
-
But why would you want them to regulate your health rather than your own parliament?
Who says they do? What exactly are you talking about?
-
Don't you trust your own government?
No.
Boris Johnson has been summoned to court to face accusations of misconduct in public office over comments made in the run-up to the EU referendum. The plaintiff contends Johnson lied and engaged in criminal conduct when he repeatedly claiming during the 2016 EU referendum campaign that the UK sent £350m a week to Brussels,
Coleman (the magistrate) ruled on Wednesday: “The allegations which have been made are unproven accusations and I do not make any findings of fact. Having considered all the relevant factors I am satisfied that this is a proper case to issue the summons as requested for the three offences as drafted. The charges are indictable only.. This means the proposed defendant will be required to attend this court for a preliminary hearing, and the case will then be sent to the crown court for trial. The charges can only be dealt with in the crown court.”
In her ruling on Wednesday, the judge said she was satisfied there was a prima facie case for the allegation that there had been an abuse of the public’s trust in a holder of office. She referred to statements provided by Ball’s team from members of the public that addressed the impact that “the apparent lie” had had on them. She also cited the contention by Power that “there will seldom be a more serious misconduct allegation against a member of parliament or mayor than to lie repeatedly to the voting public on a national and international platform, in order to win your desired outcome”.
A central plank of the case put forward by Ball’s team was that Johnson, as an MP and previous mayor of London, “lied and misled” the public about the cost of EU membership and used the “platforms and opportunities offered to him by virtue of his public office”. Coleman’s ruling noted that, as mayor, Johnson signed off several letters in that capacity when expressing his views on Brexit. His then chief of staff, Edward Lister, was also said to have informed the mayor’s staff that it was “official mayoral policy” to support the case for leaving the EU.
“A policy being deemed official, and therefore of the office, would make any campaigning thereafter by the proposed defendant official and pursuant to his office,” the ruling stated.
-
Not sure to laugh or to cry.
Well, while you're thinking about it , Slobodan, I'm off to watch the final of the Europa League featuring Arsenal v Chelsea in Baku, Azerbaijan.
Now for many of us the result should be a surprise, but (according to a Leader in The Economist) Azerbaijan is the only country, so far, to have published their election results ... a full day before anyone actually voted!
All good fun.
-
You keep framing this as a sovereignty issue, but it's not clear to me why this would be a factor in the UK any more than anywhere else. Why would Britons find onerous that which the French and Germans (and others) think is just fine? If the loss of sovereignty is a major issue, as you assert, shouldn't they all be trying to "exit"?
Why would a Brit want a German to decide how they should live?
-
Why would a Brit want a German to decide how they should live?
You keep repeating this assertion. Others, who live there, have contradicted you. In what actual ways does this happen? The only example I've heard of is the "bend in the banana" issue. :)
-
You keep repeating this assertion. Others, who live there, have contradicted you. In what actual ways does this happen? The only example I've heard of is the "bend in the banana" issue. :)
Robert, the wires have soldered together. The situation has beeen outlined and then detailed to him and others, but it simply doesn't suit their stance to admit that they get it, so they have no recurse but to persist in this nonsensical cycle of wilful blindness.
It's pretty much the same thing as May trying to push the same old same old after repeatedly being told by her opposites in Europe that the options she wants to have are impossible to grant. There comes a time when people should accept that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is madness.
Rob
-
Why would a Brit want a German to decide how they should live?
They don't. The European Union is about all countries in the union agreeing to legislation that benefits all of the members.
-
In the UK, do you have to pay an NHS fee when you are retired?
No, nothing at all.
-
They don't. The European Union is about all countries in the union agreeing to legislation that benefits all of the members.
Apparently the Brits don;t agree, hence Brexit. Also, recent EU elections favored many nationalists in Italy, France and elsewhere as well as Britain. I suspect they will change many EU rules and let each Nation decide how they want to live. To those opposed to this, it may turn out to be the salvation of the EU. If they get back to a trade compact only, and avoid issues that really should be determined locally by each nation, more EUropeans will support it.
-
If they get back to a trade compact only, and avoid issues that really should be determined locally by each nation, more EUropeans will support it.
What issues?
-
What issues?
Issues that mainly should be left up to democratic legislation in each nation:
2 Constitutional law
2.1 Treaties
2.2 Executive institutions
2.3 Legislature
2.4 Judiciary
2.5 Conflict of laws
3 Administrative law
3.1 Direct effect
3.2 References and remedies
3.3 Judicial review
3.4 Human rights and principles
4 Free movement and trade
4.1 Goods
4.2 Workers
4.3 Citizens
4.4 Establishment and services
4.5 Capital
5 Social and market regulations
5.1 Consumer protection
5.2 Labour rights
5.3 Companies and investment
5.4 Competition law
5.5 Public services
5.6 Obligations and property
6 Public regulation
6.1 Fiscal and monetary policy
6.2 Taxation
6.3 Environmental law
6.4 Natural resource management
6.5 Data and information
6.6 Foreign policy
6.7 Criminal law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law
-
Apparently the Brits don;t agree, hence Brexit.
No. It's clear you have no real understanding of the issues here in the UK. It's a very complex and nuanced problem.
-
Issues that mainly should be left up to democratic legislation in each nation:
2 Constitutional law
2.1 Treaties
2.2 Executive institutions
2.3 Legislature
2.4 Judiciary
2.5 Conflict of laws
3 Administrative law
3.1 Direct effect
3.2 References and remedies
3.3 Judicial review
3.4 Human rights and principles
4 Free movement and trade
4.1 Goods
4.2 Workers
4.3 Citizens
4.4 Establishment and services
4.5 Capital
5 Social and market regulations
5.1 Consumer protection
5.2 Labour rights
5.3 Companies and investment
5.4 Competition law
5.5 Public services
5.6 Obligations and property
6 Public regulation
6.1 Fiscal and monetary policy
6.2 Taxation
6.3 Environmental law
6.4 Natural resource management
6.5 Data and information
6.6 Foreign policy
6.7 Criminal law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law
Aha! Your checklist for chaos, then!
Try harder, Alan; we're talking about a club, here, where mutually agreed rules and norms function for the greater and smoother good of the group. Which they generally have, with the inevitable cases of winners and losers depending on the areas where each has its strengths or weaknesses. No unit can have it all, and that includes the ones some love to hate: Germany and France.
But what's the point of engaging here when you clearly refuse to understand a goddam thing about it. Any fool can copy out or link to wiki or any other site and draw up any nonsense he likes.
You're out of your depth. Get yourself a hobby you can do.
-
Aha! Your checklist for chaos, then!
Try harder, Alan; we're talking about a club, here, where mutually agreed rules and norms function for the greater and smoother good of the group. Which they generally have, with the inevitable cases of winners and losers depending on the areas where each has its strengths or weaknesses. No unit can have it all, and that includes the ones some love to hate: Germany and France.
But what's the point of engaging here when you clearly refuse to understand a goddam thing about it. Any fool can copy out or link to wiki or any other site and draw up any nonsense he likes.
You're out of your depth. Get yourself a hobby you can do.
Why are you getting angry at me, Rob, an American observer? Your fellow Brits voted for Brexit, not me. And Italian, French and others just voted for for more nationalist control rather then letting Brussels dictate how Europeans should live. People are rejecting globalists and their socialist, nationless corporate, pie-in-the-sky borderless theories.
-
Why are you getting angry at me, Rob, an American observer? Your fellow Brits voted for Brexit, not me. And Italian, French and others just voted for for more nationalist control rather then letting Brussels dictate how Europeans should live. People are rejecting globalists and their socialist, nationless corporate, pie-in-the-sky borderless theories.
Because you just don't get what people are trying to explain to you, ad nauseam. It's like you have an impenetrable barrier between reading and comprehension.
It has zero to do with socialism; God knows that's the last creed I would embrace! There is nothing illusory about borders: they have their forms of control and these vary depending on whether or not the individual countries signed up to the Schengen deal. The UK did not, and the borders are controlled. You still require a passport to travel in and out, as do I, a Brit!
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C2PRFE_enES586ES586&source=hp&ei=A7bvXNa_AaeOlwSe3ae4Cw&q=schengen+agreement&oq=schengen&gs_l=psy-ab.1.3.0l10.1257.2781..9169...0.0..0.69.496.8......0....1..gws-wiz.....0.2jR4B3tyBxY
The border controls that are vitally important to the survival of the UK industrial exercise are those that govern the free passage of parts from one company in Europoe to another, and the car industry - as probably the washing machine one too - is full of such movements of parts. If you will have to have all those trucks checked, duty applied, the competitive edge with disappear.
The UK builds wings for Aerobus, wings that go to Toulouse for assembly; only America's Boeing and some other, alternative EEC country that will get the employment instead, will be celebrating the demise of the UK industry. Do you have shares in Boeing, perchance?
Rob
-
Because you just don't get what people are trying to explain to you, ad nauseam. It's like you have an impenetrable barrier between reading and comprehension.
It has zero to do with socialism; God knows that's the last creed I would embrace! There is nothing illusory about borders: they have their forms of control and these vary depending on whether or not the individual countries signed up to the Schengen deal. The UK did not, and the borders are controlled. You still require a passport to travel in and out, as do I, a Brit!
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C2PRFE_enES586ES586&source=hp&ei=A7bvXNa_AaeOlwSe3ae4Cw&q=schengen+agreement&oq=schengen&gs_l=psy-ab.1.3.0l10.1257.2781..9169...0.0..0.69.496.8......0....1..gws-wiz.....0.2jR4B3tyBxY
The border controls that are vitally important to the survival of the UK industrial exercise are those that govern the free passage of parts from one company in Europoe to another, and the car industry - as probably the washing machine one too - is full of such movements of parts. If you will have to have all those trucks checked, duty applied, the competitive edge with disappear.
The UK builds wings for Aerobus, wings that go to Toulouse for assembly; only America's Boeing and some other, alternative EEC country that will get the employment instead, will be celebrating the demise of the UK industry. Do you have shares in Boeing, perchance?
Rob
The fact is people voted for Brexit. And recently they voted for nationalists who object the way the EU has ruled. They want their nations' parliament to legislate, not Brussels' bureaucrats who don;t answer directly to their country's voters. I welcome your observations of why Europeans are voting this way. But your reaction seems to be disappointment with the results and an attempt to deny it happened. We had similar reactions here when Trump won with his nationalist stands. What's happening since then is that the other side is now taking stronger nationalist positions regarding workers and espousing patriotic leanings regarding international affairs. Trump and Brexit have woken up the "silent majority".
-
Some of them did, 33.9% of those old enough to vote.
Cheers,
Bart
Some? That's spin. It was a Majority.
-
1. The fact is people voted for Brexit. And recently they voted for nationalists who object the way the EU has ruled. 2. They want their nations' parliament to legislate, not Brussels' bureaucrats who don;t answer directly to their country's voters. I welcome your observations of why Europeans are voting this way. But your reaction seems to be disappointment with the results and an attempt to deny it happened. 3. We had similar reactions here when Trump won with his nationalist stands. What's happening since then is that the other side is now taking stronger nationalist positions regarding workers and espousing patriotic leanings regarding international affairs. Trump and Brexit have woken up the "silent majority".
1. Just as people leap off the Brooklyn Bridge.
Does that imply that there is little merit to trying to save them (and the rest of the famiily if chained to them too) from making that damnfool jump whilst there is still time?
2. You still haven't picked up on what you have been told, what has been explained to you, have you? You persist in sticking with half-digested notions. That is why I find conversing with you is like whipping the fog. I'm out of it, thanks; fight with your shadow if you must.
3. The reasons why your lot voted for Trump are because you Americans live in a bubble of your own. That your decisions, and that those subsequently made on your behalf beggar belief, has nothing to do with Brexit beyond the fact that Trump seems willing to lend weight and leap under the covers with Nigel... maybe the latter is hoping Melania might be there, too. But you never can tell, can you?
-
The losing side in every election always claims the other side just didn't "get it."
-
Those who are mocking Alan seem like a good example of not being able to see the forest from the trees. Seeing things from a distance helps to recognize major shapes and forms, even if the detail is missing or wrong. From here, especially some of us who also lived there, we see socialist tendencies better than you frogs in a still tepid pot. We see the tendency toward a United States of Europe (actually, it is more like a Union of
Soviet Europe Socialist Republics). We see the tendency toward majority vote, instead of consensus. Apparently, most Brits, by the virtue of seeing it from the distance as well, can see all that too.
-
The losing side in every election always claims the other side just didn't "get it."
It's not really about one side or another "not getting it" It's just that Alan doesn't know what he's talking about. That's ok - he doesn't live here so he's not aware of the issues, what's real and what's propaganda and he can't he expected to. But it just makes discussion a bit pointless.
-
Those who are mocking Alan seem like a good example of not being able to see the forest from the trees. Seeing things from a distance helps to recognize major shapes and forms, even if the detail is missing or wrong. From here, especially some of us who also lived there, we see socialist tendencies better than you frogs in a still tepid pot. We see the tendency toward a United States of Europe (actually, it is more like a Union of Soviet Europe Socialist Republics). We see the tendency toward majority vote, instead of consensus. Apparently, most Brits, by the virtue of seeing it from the distance as well, can see all that too.
Your argument would be stronger if you gave some actual examples of this malignant tendency that you identify, rather than just asserting that it is real.
-
Your argument would be stronger if you gave some actual examples of this malignant tendency that you identify, rather than just asserting that it is real.
When you buy me a beer :)
In the meantime, one example (emphasis mine):
While some policy areas require unanimity among Council members, for selected policy areas qualified majority voting has existed right from the start. All major treaties have shifted some policy areas from unanimity to qualified majority voting.
Worth mentioning that majority is defined not only by member-state (i.e., 16 out of 28), but by population as well, giving Germany and France the top-two positions, followed by the UK and Italy.
-
Some of them did, 33.9% of those old enough to vote.
That's how elections work, Bart. If you can't be bothered to get off your arse and walk to a polling station, or can't be bothered to apply for a postal vote and post it, your opinion doesn't count. It's hardly unfair.
Jeremy
-
An interesting angle on Brexit, from The Economist:
Britons pride themselves on their “unwritten” constitution. America, France and Germany need rules to be set down in black and white. In the Mother of Parliaments democracy has blossomed for over 300 years without coups, revolution or civil war, Irish independence aside. Its politics are governed by an evolving set of traditions, conventions and laws under a sovereign Parliament. Thanks to its stability, Britain convinced the world that its style of government was built on solid foundations laid down over centuries of commonsense adaptation.
That view is out of date. The remorseless logic of Brexit has shoved a stick of constitutional dynamite beneath the United Kingdom—and, given the difficulty of constitutional reform in a country at loggerheads, there is little that can be done to defuse it. The chances are high that Britons will soon discover that the constitution they counted on to be adaptable and robust can in fact amplify chaos, division and the threat to the union.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/05/30/britains-constitutional-time-bomb?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/2019/05/30n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/NA/247492/n
-
An interesting angle on Brexit, from The Economist...
That's pretty well what has already happened. The first-past-the-post system may have worked in a two party system, but didn't allow the range of pro and anti-European views to be reflected in party politics or doesn't offer the flexibilty that's needed to resolve the situation.
-
I totally agree. I just tried clarifying to Alan that "The fact is people voted for Brexit." doesn't mean that the majority of 'the people in the UK' wanted to Leave. It's more that a lot of them couldn't be bothered to vote, especially young people.
Which is also why I encourage everyone to always make use of their voting rights. If you don't, then others will decide your future, and possibly not the future you agree with.
Cheers,
Bart
Not so
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
-
That's how elections work, Bart. If you can't be bothered to get off your arse and walk to a polling station, or can't be bothered to apply for a postal vote and post it, your opinion doesn't count. It's hardly unfair.
Jeremy
Which does nothing to explain why some of us living abroad, who are still British citizens unless we changed nationalities, were denied a vote.
Seems extraordinarily unfair and undemocratic. Our past and future is irrevocably bound up with the future of the United Kingdom on almost every level. As to why it makes any legal difference to allow a migrant of five years the vote but not one of many more years, is crazy and no more than an attempt at rigging the presumed colour of such a vote. Of the two, the one with the greater foreign experience surely knows one helluva lot more about the advantages or otherwise of open doors than the other! If anything, he can bring a less rose-tinted perspective to the debate. But then that's not was wanted, was it?
-
An interesting angle on Brexit, from The Economist:
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/05/30/britains-constitutional-time-bomb?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/2019/05/30n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/NA/247492/n
That little scribble is no more than a journalistic attempt to ignite some fresh interest in what that paper has to say. The writer could just as easily have swung it in the opposite direction, saying how wonderfully resilient the system is that it survives so well and can continue to battle on until it resolves the issue, whereas other systems would have had the cobblestones torn up and The Houses of Parliament set ablaze.
Journos can write anything they need to write, just as posters in LuLa can defend any old crap they feel inclined to defend, whether or not they actually believe in it. Who will ever know?
-
The reasons why your lot voted for Trump are because you Americans live in a bubble of your own. That your decisions, and that those subsequently made on your behalf beggar belief, has nothing to do with Brexit beyond the fact that Trump seems willing to lend weight and leap under the covers with Nigel. . . .
I wish you were correct about that, and that Trump's election was a purely American anomaly, but I think actually he tapped into the same current of anti-elite resentment that has energized the neo-nationalist movement in the U.K.—and elsewhere in Europe, for that matter. That their policy prescriptions may wind up hurting rather than helping the proponents doesn't negate the emotional value of "sticking it to the man." People who are angry enough tend to lash out even when lashing out is self-defeating.
I welcome your observations of why Europeans are voting this way. But your reaction seems to be disappointment with the results and an attempt to deny it happened. We had similar reactions here when Trump won with his nationalist stands. What's happening since then is that the other side is now taking stronger nationalist positions regarding workers . . .
I wish you were wrong about that, but I think it's a valid point: the centrist and center-right Democrats failed in 2016 to take seriously the economic grievances of working- and middle-class voters who gave Trump majorities in a sufficient number of states to achieve a victory in the electoral college (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html) despite losing the national popular vote. Now, as they prepare for 2020, many of them are adopting policy proposals from the left wing of the party that they previously considered too radical.
But while the causes of this resentment on either side of the Atlantic may have much in common, the effects are quite different. Trump's election and the policy initiatives of his Administration—some of which have been ineffective or ruled improper by the courts on either procedural or substantive legal grounds—are easily, and, if a Democrat or a mainstream Republican is elected president in 2020, quickly reversible. If the U.K. exits the European Union, whether it's a "hard Brexit" or any sort of negotiated one that currently seems feasible, the effects will likely be impossible to undo.
-
Which does nothing to explain why some of us living abroad, who are still British citizens unless we changed nationalities, were denied a vote.
Seems extraordinarily unfair and undemocratic. Our past and future is irrevocably bound up with the future of the United Kingdom on almost every level. As to why it makes any legal difference to allow a migrant of five years the vote but not one of many more years, is crazy and no more than an attempt at rigging the presumed colour of such a vote. Of the two, the one with the greater foreign experience surely knows one helluva lot more about the advantages or otherwise of open doors than the other! If anything, he can bring a less rose-tinted perspective to the debate. But then that's not was wanted, was it?
Why were you denied the right to vote?
-
Not so
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
Every time I hear about "new findings" that correct the old by 100%, I become highly suspicions of the finders intentions, bias, and motive.
EDIT: Oh, this was based on polling! But of course. We all know by now how accurate polls are. Check out the Bradley Effect. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect).
-
... he writer could just as easily have swung it in the opposite direction, saying how wonderfully resilient the system is that it survives so well and can continue to battle on until it resolves the issue...
Have you read the article, you would have found exactly that:
It is indeed just possible that their constitution’s infinite flexibility will permit a compromise that gets the country through the Brexit badlands.
-
Why were you denied the right to vote?
Screw up. The UK was supposed to have left, so no voting arrangements had been made for UK residents in the EU, or vice versa. That includes postal votes where you might vote in your own country or for voting in the country where you live. Some people figured things out and got paperwork sorted out, others didn't .
-
Screw up. The UK was supposed to have left...
The question was about Brexit referendum.
-
Which does nothing to explain why some of us living abroad, who are still British citizens unless we changed nationalities, were denied a vote.
Seems extraordinarily unfair and undemocratic. Our past and future is irrevocably bound up with the future of the United Kingdom on almost every level. As to why it makes any legal difference to allow a migrant of five years the vote but not one of many more years, is crazy and no more than an attempt at rigging the presumed colour of such a vote. Of the two, the one with the greater foreign experience surely knows one helluva lot more about the advantages or otherwise of open doors than the other! If anything, he can bring a less rose-tinted perspective to the debate. But then that's not was wanted, was it?
There was a good deal of litigation about that, Rob. As far as I recall, the rule prevented those who had not lived in the UK for 15 years from voting in the referendum. A claim was brought and failed, both at first instance and on appeal: see here (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/469.html).
Jeremy
-
Britons pride themselves on their “unwritten” constitution. America, France and Germany need rules to be set down in black and white. In the Mother of Parliaments democracy has blossomed for over 300 years without coups, revolution or civil war, Irish independence aside. Its politics are governed by an evolving set of traditions, conventions and laws under a sovereign Parliament. Thanks to its stability, Britain convinced the world that its style of government was built on solid foundations laid down over centuries of commonsense adaptation.
That's not right, although it's commonly said. We do not have an "unwritten" constitution: there are centuries of legal and academic writing on the topic, and numerous cases decided at the highest level of the judiciary which are binding on lower courts and, without good reason, on what is now the Supreme Court as well.
What we lack is a codified constitution, such as is possessed by the USA. As ever, there are arguments for and against; but the rigid application to modern life of certain aspects of the US constitution hardly gives one confidence that it's the most appropriate solution. On the whole, we have pragmatically adapted to changing circumstances, something which is tricky if one relies on a 200-year-old document.
Jeremy
-
That's not right, although it's commonly said. We do not have an "unwritten" constitution: there are centuries of legal and academic writing on the topic, and numerous cases decided at the highest level of the judiciary which are binding on lower courts and, without good reason, on what is now the Supreme Court as well....
How is that different from what the article said:
... governed by an evolving set of traditions, conventions and laws under a sovereign Parliament.
-
. . .but the rigid application to modern life of certain aspects of the US constitution hardly gives one confidence that it's the most appropriate solution.
Which aspects would those be, Jeremy? And what in "modern life" has made those aspects inapplicable?
-
Have you read the article, you would have found exactly that:
Yes, I did read it, to the extent that I was not required to "sign up", as the page requested; if there is more to the thing than what is available to view, it will remain hidden behind their firedoor. My point is that he declares the system is past its sell-by date; that he eventually - if resignedly - admits it will get through it doesn't alter his assumptions that the system is kaput. In fact, that he does admit that it will survive simply underlines the fact that he or any other journo with the wish, could have slanted the thing in either direction, concluding in the opposite direction. Folks can argue in all directions, as they obviously do, or life would otherwise just be a series of statements with no follow ups. Again, much newspaper ado about not a lot.
Rob
-
That's not right, although it's commonly said. We do not have an "unwritten" constitution: there are centuries of legal and academic writing on the topic, and numerous cases decided at the highest level of the judiciary which are binding on lower courts and, without good reason, on what is now the Supreme Court as well.
What we lack is a codified constitution, such as is possessed by the USA. As ever, there are arguments for and against; but the rigid application to modern life of certain aspects of the US constitution hardly gives one confidence that it's the most appropriate solution. On the whole, we have pragmatically adapted to changing circumstances, something which is tricky if one relies on a 200-year-old document.
Jeremy
The American Constitution can be and has been amended to change with the times. However, it requires a high bar for change to avoid passing "hot" emotions that can effect laws in countries with no written constitution. The fact it's 200 years old does not make it out of date however. It's very organization for government structure and the rights of man protects against human's grab for power today since not much has changed with man's psychology and DNA in a million years.
-
There was a good deal of litigation about that, Rob. As far as I recall, the rule prevented those who had not lived in the UK for 15 years from voting in the referendum. A claim was brought and failed, both at first instance and on appeal: see here (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/469.html).
Jeremy
Now I understand why my lawyer granddaughter works such long hours; I would have been driven insane by now trying to stay awake, objective and - heaven forfend - of reasonable thought, as in the mythical reasonable man.
Why does it have to be so difficult to accept that any country's national should still enjoy exercising his birthrights, voting an important one, by virtue of that condition? I fail to see why it becomes confused with anything else such as freedom of movement from one place to another. Apparently, the US believes in that right of belonging so strongly that every American citizen will pay taxes to America regardless of where he lives!
:-)
-
... Apparently, the US believes in that right of belonging so strongly that every American citizen will pay taxes to America regardless of where he lives!
Do British expats also pay taxes back home?
-
Now I understand why my lawyer granddaughter works such long hours; I would have been driven insane by now trying to stay awake, objective and - heaven forfend - of reasonable thought, as in the mythical reasonable man.
Why does it have to be so difficult to accept that any country's national should still enjoy exercising his birthrights, voting an important one, by virtue of that condition? I fail to see why it becomes confused with anything else such as freedom of movement from one place to another. Apparently, the US believes in that right of belonging so strongly that every American citizen will pay taxes to America regardless of where he lives!
:-)
Generally, ex-pat Americans can take a credit against American taxes owed for what they paid in taxes to foreign countries where they work. They also can vote in Federal elections although certain States may not allow voting for State candidates. Also, if you vote in particular state, you may open yourself to local state taxes.
-
Do British expats also pay taxes back home?
It depends: there is an international agreement between particular countries where things are set up to avoid people paying double taxation, the paying of similar taxes twice - in the place of "residence" as well as in their homeland, Britain, in this case.
There is also a set of agreements that allows wills to be drawn up to suit the native land of origin. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to apply to the act of inheritance, so regardless of whom your money is going to, the Spanish, reasonably, want their pound of flesh from anything you hold in Spain, which is a good reason for not dying here if you have children you love. :-)
A bone of contention is the difference between residence and domicile. Not as simple or clear as that might look at first glance.
Worse, for the really rich, you can't just buy a superyacht and live on that, and escape all taxation, either. My heart truly bleeds!
:-)
-
It depends...
So you are saying you do not pay British taxes. If so, then, to paraphrase, "no taxation - no representation." ;)
-
So you are saying you do not pay British taxes. If so, then, to paraphrase, "no taxation - no representation." ;)
I am not asking anyone to represent me; I am asking for my right to vote as a Britush citizen to be respected.
-
I am not asking anyone to represent me; I am asking for my right to vote as a Britush citizen to be respected.
There seems to be a 15 year limit for staying out of GB after which time you lose your British voting rights. I wouldn't like that either. I believe there are no US limits for American citizens. What happens with other BRitish things like passports after 15 years? Do you actually lose your citizenship and become a "man without a country".
-
I am not asking anyone to represent me; I am asking for my right to vote as a Britush citizen to be respected.
Oh, come on, Rob! You know what I meant by “paraphrasing”: no taxation - no voting. Or, in other words, your vote won’t be represented. British rights come with British obligations. When I move back to Belgrade, I will continue to vote in the US elections, but I will also pay US taxes.
-
I am not asking anyone to represent me; I am asking for my right to vote as a Britush citizen to be respected.
Come to think of it, I am beginning to see the benefits of the EU. Instead of writing to his member of the Parliament, Rob, for instance, can ask Germany to represent him and take the UK to court to force it to change the 15-year rule. Sweet! ;)
-
Why does it have to be so difficult to accept that any country's national should still enjoy exercising his birthrights, voting an important one, by virtue of that condition? I fail to see why it becomes confused with anything else such as freedom of movement from one place to another.
There's nothing difficult in accepting the concept, Rob. It would take more time than I have to dig into the relevant legislation, but as far as I can gather,
- anyone eligible to vote in a UK election was eligible to vote in the referendum;
- that includes those who have lived abroad for more than 15 years, but only if they had registered to vote in a UK election at some point in the previous 15 years.
So the issue wasn't the length of time you or Mr Shindler had been living abroad; it was the fact that you hadn't registered to vote in the UK for 15 years, which (reasonably or otherwise) was presumably felt to indicate a lack of interest in the UK for that length of time.
Come to think of it, I am beginning to see the benefits of the EU. Instead of writing to his member of the Parliament, Rob, for instance, can ask Germany to represent him and take the UK to court to force it to change the 15-year rule. Sweet! ;)
He could ask, and it might try; but it would fail.
Jeremy
-
Which aspects would those be, Jeremy? And what in "modern life" has made those aspects inapplicable?
The word "guns" springs to mind, Russ. I imagine there are others.
Jeremy
-
Oh, come on, Rob! You know what I meant by “paraphrasing”: no taxation - no voting. Or, in other words, your vote won’t be represented. British rights come with British obligations. When I move back to Belgrade, I will continue to vote in the US elections, but I will also pay US taxes.
Doesn't hold: as Brit in Spain you are in the same tax position during your first few years abroad as after thirty or more.
Worth noting, in the context: whilst I ran the business from here, I did pay my taxes into the UK system, VAT included, and with thousands of calendar units, that was some VAT contribution!
Also, in the case of somebody on the breadline, in either country, they will be paying no tax anywhere. Do you then deprive them of their native rights to vote because they are too poor to pay for it?
Ill considered concept favouring the rich and easily mobile.
-
There's nothing difficult in accepting the concept, Rob. It would take more time than I have to dig into the relevant legislation, but as far as I can gather,
- anyone eligible to vote in a UK election was eligible to vote in the referendum;
- that includes those who have lived abroad for more than 15 years, but only if they had registered to vote in a UK election at some point in the previous 15 years.
So the issue wasn't the length of time you or Mr Shindler had been living abroad; it was the fact that you hadn't registered to vote in the UK for 15 years, which (reasonably or otherwise) was presumably felt to indicate a lack of interest in the UK for that length of time.
He could ask, and it might try; but it would fail.
Jeremy
That is the key factor, and in my case, absolutely unreasonable, as I'd imagine it has to be for anyone depending on a UK pension or with family still living there. How could we not be interested! That has no bearing on whether or not we manage to vote there.
Regarding voting rights here, we are curerently permitted to take part in local elections but not national. I never do vote, because I know that the nuances of local politics are way over my head and that, understanding them apart, I feel no moral right to take a stand. I am here as a permitted, legal guest, and it feels absurd that I should then go on to presume to tell the locals how to run their domestic affairs; this is not colonialism!
Perhaps that partly explains why I and so many others resent the way that migration is panning out in Europoe, with the creeping changes in national identity via spires and minarets where once stood the occasional steeple. But that migration has little to do with the EEC as such, and everything to do with the quest for cheap labour. Germany imported thousands of Turks, Spaniards etc, during the post-war years to work in factories and anywhere they had a national shortfall. Then, instead of having those folks over on precise contracts, they allowed them to settle, spawn and vanish without trace into the diaspora, with the results that we have today. Simply put, the mirror effects of post-slavery times across the Atlantic. The difference with many of the Spaniards was that once they made a buck or two, they fled back to the homeland to live a more serene lifestyle, perhaps start a small business at home. They know where life is the sweeter.
France, Italy and Spain all had territories in northern Africa or beyond, and as with Britain and the old empire, gave many of those peoples the right to settle. That might have been a huge error of judgement, permitting the entrance of the Trojan horse of birthrates. Go figure where the maths leads us. France, especially, knows much about this.
-
Which aspects would those be, Jeremy? And what in "modern life" has made those aspects inapplicable?
The concept of "...a well regulated militia..." for one. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is particularly vague regarding voting rights and the Supreme Court continues to punt on this issue.
-
The concept of "...a well regulated militia..." for one. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is particularly vague regarding voting rights and the Supreme Court continues to punt on this issue.
I agree about the "well regulated militia," Alan. That phrase made sense when it was written, but it's confusing nowadays. Fortunately, the Supremes clarified the meaning of the second amendment. As far as the 14th is concerned, I tend to agree, but the amendment is amendable, so Congress and the states can have at it and change it. That's the bottom line. Our Consitution isn't set in concrete. It's been amended 27 times. It can be amended again.
-
I agree about the "well regulated militia," Alan. That phrase made sense when it was written, but it's confusing nowadays. Fortunately, the Supremes clarified the meaning of the second amendment. As far as the 14th is concerned, I tend to agree, but the amendment is amendable, so Congress and the states can have at it and change it. That's the bottom line. Our Consitution isn't set in concrete. It's been amended 27 times. It can be amended again.
It can be amended and perhaps will be. I'm more troubled by the "originalist doctrine" that is being bandied about so much these days. The vagueness of the what the framers wrote has caused immense difficulty over the years and technology has evolved that puts pressure on the judiciary to make decisions as Congress is too disfunctional these days.
-
I’m not about to get into an extended argument in this thread, Alan. It’s about Brexit, not the US Constitution. But I’ll drop out after saying this: The US Constitution was -- IS -- a unique governing document that, for the first time in human history gave power to the people, but gave it to them as: “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Thanks, Ben) Currently the left seems to be busting its butt to make sure we can’t keep it. But their efforts will turn out to be counterproductive – for them and for all of us. As far as Congress being disfunctional is concerned, when, exactly, has it not been?
There was nothing “vague” about the Constitution, much as the left would like to believe that. Unfortunately, as TS Eliot pointed out: “Words strain, Crack and sometimes break, under the burden, Under the tension, slip, slide, perish, Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place, Will not stay still.” So the intent of amendments has been to keep the “originalism,” which you disdain, but to apply it to changes in our condition and in our understanding of the meaning of words. All in all the effort has been been pretty damn effective.
Jeremy: yes, we probably could give up our guns, as Britain has. Then we could kill each other with knives – same thing that’s going on in London at a great rate. The problem is people, not guns or knives.
-
In thinking about the American constitution, it would not allow America to join a political and economic organization like the EU. While trade pacts and other treaties can and have been approved by the Senate as required by the Constitution, it prevents turning over regulation of immigration, freedom of speech and other protected rights to a foreign entity. Any legislation regarding these things have to been handled by the American Congress and President with oversight by our Supreme Court. The founders of America and its Constitution were very concerned with foreign influence in American government, something the EU structure and government amplifies. These influences are now coming home to roost in Britain and elsewhere. Europeans are reacting negatively to their loss of their nations' political power.
-
Jeremy: yes, we probably could give up our guns, as Britain has. Then we could kill each other with knives – same thing that’s going on in London at a great rate. The problem is people, not guns or knives.
It's not at a "great rate", just worryingly-more than before. You already have knife deaths in the US - too.
-
It's not at a "great rate", just worryingly-more than before. You already have knife deaths in the US - too.
https://qz.com/1567231/the-statistics-behind-the-uks-knife-crime-emergency/ (among numerous other sources)
-
One or two a week in a 10m city. Higher than before, but small by comparison with the US murder rate.
-
... The US Constitution was -- IS -- a unique governing document that, for the first time in human history gave power to the people...
The U.S. Constitution, and its Bill of Rights, is the most beatiful document in the history of the mankind.
-
One or two a week in a 10m city. Higher than before, but small by comparison with the US murder rate.
Only two a week? Well, that's a relief! As far as the murder rate in the U.S.is concerned, it's only high in cities run by the left. Baltimore and Chicago come to mind.
-
Shall we go back to the regular reporting, i.e., to the country without a (codified) Constitution and it’s mess? ;)
-
If most measure are adopted by a majority vote, those who voted against, but still forced to accept the outcome, ARE turning their rights to a foreign entity.
-
Total bollocks. Nobody is turning over rights to a foreign entity. The sovereign countries decided to join forces to improve standards that a single country could not do, quite similar to the US states letting the nation take care of things like food and drug safety, defense, the legal system, infrastructure spanning more than a single state, Trade agreements, Human rights issues, etc. ...
To an outsider, the structure of the European Union may be hard to fathom but it's full of checks and balances, and consists of 7 institutions:
- the European Parliament,
- the European Council,
- the Council of the European Union,
- the European Commission,
- the Court of Justice of the European Union,
- the European Central Bank and
- the Court of Auditors.
The European Parliament
The European Parliament (EP) shares the legislative and budgetary authority of the Union with the Council of the European Union (not to be confused with the European Council). Its 751 members are elected every five years by universal suffrage. They represent nearly 500 million citizens (the world's second largest democratic electorate) and form the only directly elected body in the Union.
The European Council
Defines the general political direction and priorities of the European Union
Members: Heads of state or government of EU countries, European Council President, European Commission President
The Council of the European Union
The Council of the European Union (informally known as the "Council of Ministers" or just "the Council") is a body holding legislative and some limited executive powers and is thus the main decision making body of the Union. The Council is composed of twenty-eight national ministers (one per state).
The European Commission
The European Commission (EC) is the executive arm of the Union. It is a body composed of one appointee from each state, currently twenty-eight, but is designed to be independent of national interests. The body is responsible for drafting all law of the European Union and has the ability to propose new laws (bills).
Court of Justice of the European Union
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the EU's judicial branch. It is responsible for interpreting EU law and treaties. It consists of one judge from each EU member country, as well as 11 advocates general.
The European Central Bank
The European Central Bank (ECB) is the central bank for the eurozone (the states which have adopted the euro) and thus controls monetary policy in that area with an agenda to maintain price stability. It is at the centre of the European System of Central Banks which comprises all EU national banks.
The Court of Auditors
The European Court of Auditors (ECA), despite its name, has no judicial powers. It ensures that taxpayer funds from the budget of the European Union have been correctly spent. It is composed of one member from each state appointed by the Council every six years.
So, all EU institutions are composed of members of all states. Nobody is turning over rights to a foreign entity. Only delusional people or trolls will continue to suggest that.
Cheers,
Bart
What you describe is a parallel government to the American government. It's totally unconstitutional in America. Our Supreme Court would not allow such an arrangement. Congress has to decide on things like immigration. Our Constitution does not allow these decisions to made by a foreign entity.
-
I certainly recognize that nothing just comes out of thin air, Bart, and am grateful to all predecessors, starting from ancient Greeks.
-
I certainly recognize that nothing just comes out of thin air, Bart, and am grateful to all predecessors, starting from ancient Greeks.
Bloody modernist!
:-)
-
According to BBC, the Trump administration wants the UK to follow the 2016 referendum result and leave the European Union. Mr Bolton said the first step towards a closer relationship was for the next prime minister to finish the Brexit process and negotiate a new trade deal with the US
Speaking to the UK's Daily Telegraph, Mr Bolton said Brexit was an opportunity for the UK to become a "strong and independent country".
-
According to BBC, the Trump administration wants the UK to follow the 2016 referendum result and leave the European Union. Mr Bolton said the first step towards a closer relationship was for the next prime minister to finish the Brexit process and negotiate a new trade deal with the US
I don't follow. Don't the USA and UK already have a close relationship?
-
Yes, they were already in a close relationship, but now Trump wants to get even closer. Meeting Queen on Monday..
The president has repeatedly interfered in the U.K.’s domestic politics, undercut its national security, and bullied its prime minister.
President Donald Trump’s barbs at Germany and the European Union get the headlines, but no ally has been more tormented by him than the United Kingdom, to which he will make a state visit next week.
...
The United States needs the U.K. It will have to do more than keep the bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office. To preserve the alliance, it needs a very different approach. It should work with the U.K. on a trade deal that is compatible with the closest-possible relationship with the EU 27 and preserves the Good Friday Agreement with Northern Ireland. It should devise trilateral structures to preserve security cooperation across the Atlantic. It should open a strategic dialogue with the U.K. on China and listen to Britain on Iran and climate change. None of this will happen in the foreseeable future. Instead, the situation is likely to go from bad to worse next week.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/trump-undermines-uk-and-bullies-theresa-may/590758/
-
According to BBC, the Trump administration wants the UK to follow the 2016 referendum result and leave the European Union. Mr Bolton said the first step towards a closer relationship was for the next prime minister to finish the Brexit process and negotiate a new trade deal with the US
Of course he does, in order to inflict a trade deal on an enfeebled UK involving taking over the NHS and obliging us to consume US food items currently banned. See Mexico as an example of the general procedure.
-
Of course he does, in order to inflict a trade deal on an enfeebled UK involving taking over the NHS and obliging us to consume US food items currently banned. See Mexico as an example of the general procedure.
And when he's finished doing that
He'll tell us to bring in the dog
And throw out the cat.
No, he'll encourage, by way of sanctions, that we all buy a Desert Eagle or three, change the pound to the dollar, make us all eat Big Macs swilled down with sweet coke whilst flying the star spangled from every window. The man's a lunatic.
Another big score for the gun lobby today, then.
But hey, anybody could have gone into the kitchen, taken a knife and walked into that office building and killed so many people, right? Right.
Condolences to those involved, but it's your country and only your vote that can change it around and bring sanity and a dose of common sense. Don't look to us: we seem to have lost our own.
-
...obliging us to consume US food items ...
Which can only be a vast improvement compared to British food. ;)
-
And when he's finished doing that
He'll tell us to bring in the dog
And throw out the cat.
No, he'll encourage, by way of sanctions, that we all buy a Desert Eagle or three, change the pound to the dollar, make us all eat Big Macs swilled down with sweet coke whilst flying the star spangled from every window. The man's a lunatic.
Another big score for the gun lobby today, then.
But hey, anybody could have gone into the kitchen, taken a knife and walked into that office building and killed so many people, right? Right.
Condolences to those involved, but it's your country and only your vote that can change it around and bring sanity and a dose of common sense. Don't look to us: we seem to have lost our own.
Venezuelans have lost their freedom and cannot fight to regain it because their rights to private gun ownership were taken away in 2012 by the Socialist and dictatorial government. The American Founders of our Constitution understood that private ownership of guns was the last defence against an oppressive government.
-
Which can only be a vast improvement compared to British food. ;)
Not really. Especially if you shop directly at the supermarkets.
Generally, vegetables, meat, cheese, fish, and even chocolate are of a much higher quality in UK, Irish and European food stores than in Northamerica.
Most probably in Belgrade, too.
-
Venezuelans have lost their freedom and cannot fight to regain it because their rights to private gun ownership were taken away in 2012 by the Socialist and dictatorial government. The American Founders of our Constitution understood that private ownership of guns was the last defence against an oppressive government.
More likely, because they voted for Chavez and Maduro. Self-inflicted damage.
-
Not really. Especially if you shop directly at the supermarkets.
Generally, vegetables, meat, cheese, fish, and even chocolate are of a much higher quality in UK, Irish and European food stores than in Northamerica.
Most probably in Belgrade, too.
I seriously doubt that. In any case, it is irrelevant, unless you eat it raw. It is what they do with it after it leaves supermarket ;)
-
I seriously doubt that. In any case, it is irrelevant, unless you eat it raw. It is what they do with it after it leaves supermarket ;)
Sounds like the opinion if someone who has never actually eaten in Britain.
-
Venezuelans have lost their freedom and cannot fight to regain it because their rights to private gun ownership were taken away in 2012 by the Socialist and dictatorial government. The American Founders of our Constitution understood that private ownership of guns was the last defence against an oppressive government.
Too funny. Try using your popguns to defend yourself when the government comes for you. Didn't work out so well in Waco !!
-
More likely, because they voted for Chavez and Maduro. Self-inflicted damage.
Worth considering what led them to do that.
-
Sounds like the opinion if someone who has never actually eaten in Britain.
Of course I did. Multiple times.
-
Worth considering what led them to do that.
Yes, it is worth considering. However, a wrong solution for a problem, real or imagined, is still a wrong solution. Especially when it is deceptively attractive and simple.
-
Of course I did. Multiple times.
Then you should know that what you say is false. I'm not sure that that is an improvement over ignorance.
-
Yes, it is worth considering. However, a wrong solution for a problem, real or imagined, is still a wrong solution. Especially when it is deceptively attractive and simple.
What might the "right".solution have consisted of?
-
... make us all eat Big Macs swilled down with sweet coke...
Looks like you are quite capable doing it yourself, without his help:
Britain is now the fattest country in western Europe.
https://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/fat-Britain-obesity/
-
What might the "right".solution have consisted of?
I do not know. I have not studied Venezuela's situation, short of knowing they were one of the richest Latin American countries, which might indicate they didn't have a problem in the first place. However, socialism is never a solution, whatever the problem is, real or imaginary.
-
However, socialism is never a solution, whatever the problem is.
Broken record - not interesting. Bye.
-
Broken record - not interesting. Bye.
It is funny how something needs to be repeated so many times for some people to sink in ;)
On the other hand, it is even better the let them experience it themselves. Just not me, I am too old for that.
-
I seriously doubt that. In any case, it is irrelevant, unless you eat it raw. It is what they do with it after it leaves supermarket ;)
A good meal starts with good ingredients. Although some cooks can ruin it anyway.
-
A good meal starts with good ingredients. Although some cooks can ruin it anyway.
There's bad ingredients and then there's this...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/22/growth-hormones-gestation-crates-bacon-us-trade-deal
-
There's bad ingredients and then there's this...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/22/growth-hormones-gestation-crates-bacon-us-trade-deal
Looks like pig happiness is more important to Brits than farmers' happiness. Besides, all done already without the U.S. (emphasis mine):
The UK’s decision to take a global lead in banning crates saw a collapse in the numbers of UK pig farmers. Cheap bacon from countries that had not introduced a ban flooded into the UK, via retailers and the food service sector. UK pig meat imports from Denmark rose by 50% and from Germany by 400% between 1997-2007, according to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.
-
Looks like pig happiness is more important to Brits than farmers' happiness. Besides, all done already without the U.S. (emphasis mine):
Are you proposing that farmers' wives should be kept in crates or that farmers be fed hormones that make them sick?
(FYI gestation crates are now banned across the EU so British farmers can compete on a level playing field)
-
More likely, because they voted for Chavez and Maduro. Self-inflicted damage.
But it was taking away the people's guns that left them stuck with these dictators.
The whole American constitution was written to limit government power and the 2nd amendment was to give the people a chance to fight back if the government become dictatorial in spite of the constitution limiting their power. Because of no guns, the Venezuelans might become like the Cubans. Generations could be lost to obscene government power.
-
But it was taking away the people's guns that left them stuck with these dictators.
The whole American constitution was written to limit government power and the 2nd amendment was to give the people a chance to fight back if the government become dictatorial in spite of the constitution limiting their power. Because of no guns, the Venezuelans might become like the Cubans. Generations could be lost to obscene government power.
I'm skeptical about the benefit of guns in this case. With communists shooting at the anti-communists it could get even worse.
-
Suggestive emphasis, due to selective quoting. UK pork exports have been increasing since 2010!!!
But the UK is a net importer (because they use lots of pork products). Because of European tariffs, there is not much meat coming from outside the EU:
https://britishmeatindustry.org/industry/imports-exports/pigmeat/
This will all change after Brexit. Imports will become more expensive, unless one imports meat containing banned growth promoters, from pigs kept in conditions banned in UK.
Time to switch to Tofu.
-
“Public opinion swings behind a hard No Deal Brexit”
https://apple.news/AVIBJqm60Qn-qRPQha-CvHA
-
“Public opinion swings behind a hard No Deal Brexit”
Beware of facile analysis, Slobodan, and be doubly cautious about believing anything you ever read in the Daily Mail, even (or perhaps especially) if you are guided there by Apple News.
Analysis of the local election results last month was used to support both Leave and Remain; and the same has been done with analysis of the European elections more recently.
Opinion polls are worse: all depends on the question you ask and the way in which you ask it. It's amusingly demonstrated here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA).
Jeremy
-
Beware of facile analysis, Slobodan, and be doubly cautious about believing anything you ever read in the Daily Mail, even (or perhaps especially) if you are guided there by Apple News.
Analysis of the local election results last month was used to support both Leave and Remain; and the same has been done with analysis of the European elections more recently.
Opinion polls are worse: all depends on the question you ask and the way in which you ask it. It's amusingly demonstrated here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA).
Jeremy' chips wra
I'd extend that caution to pretty much all the red tops: they write downwards, fantasize, and hope to sell in large numbers to that demographic; tomorrow's fish 'n' chips wrappers, then, that purpose being the one of greater worth. If disposed of responsibly, that is.
That said, I have almost as little faith in the better newspapers that also have a constituency to service.
Some evenings, when I thrill myself with the second dose of the day's eye drops, I switch on Sky News hoping to get some inkling of the day's events, and then, to my horror, realise it's not the news, but The Pledge! With eyes closed for the next ten, I'm not about to grope my way to where I may have left the tv remote, so I have little option but to hear them shout at one another like LuLa on a bad day. What a bunch of wankers! Yet, it appears they are very popular, which is rather alarming, in its way.
Rob
-
“Public opinion swings behind a hard No Deal Brexit”
A part of me hopes that is correct. I am relatively secure as are the people I care about. My daughter has the right to a second passport so she can escape. And when the Brexiters find themselves on the unemployment line I will not be shedding any tears. Of course there will be innocent victims and those are the ones I am sorry for.
-
Brexit and Boris may not happen after all: today, in London, the ever diplomatic Mr Trump stuck his nose into the pie and declared he was in favour of both! Going on past record...
But Melania continues to shine! Once a model...
What's with all the ... Rob?
:-)
-
Beware of facile analysis, Slobodan, and be doubly cautious about believing anything you ever read in the Daily Mail, even (or perhaps especially) if you are guided there by Apple News.
Analysis of the local election results last month was used to support both Leave and Remain; and the same has been done with analysis of the European elections more recently.
Opinion polls are worse: all depends on the question you ask and the way in which you ask it. It's amusingly demonstrated here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA).
Jeremy
Fair enough, Jeremy, no dispute from me about the value of polls. Here in the States, it is known as the Bradley effect. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect). Though your example is indisputably more entertaining.
-
I'm skeptical about the benefit of guns in this case. With communists shooting at the anti-communists it could get even worse.
Castro overthrew Batista the former dictator with guns. First thing Castro did when he took power was get rid of private guns. He knew!
-
Castro overthrew Batista the former dictator with guns. First thing Castro did when he took power was get rid of private guns. He knew!
Not true. Rather the opposite - he armed the population in order to defend the revolution against the US.
-
Not true. Rather the opposite - he armed the population in order to defend the revolution against the US.
And it's already fully armed to protect itself from itself. Beautiful symmetry.
Like the atom bomb: we have it to threaten the other kids with it but dare not use it because all the other kids that have it will use it, and beautiful destruction will resolve the problems of mankind.
So we threaten the other kids that don't have it and trade them off between ourselves and the other haves. Are we the mothers of invention or just a bunch of mothers? Or both?
-
Not true. Rather the opposite - he armed the population in order to defend the revolution against the US.
A quick googling proves the opposite:
once the crisis was over, Fidel ordered the disarmament of the militias. Since then, only government forces could have weapons.
Weapons for the Government, not for the people
We consulted with Rebeca Esther Ulloa Sarmiento, Cuban journalist and researcher, co-author of “Fidel Castro, the last dinosaur” and other political books, about what happens when a government takes away from its citizens the ability to defend themselves and how this process is experienced by exiles in the United States.
Ulloa says that Castro convinced the people that armament was not necessary. One week after seizing power, Fidel Castro said: “Weapons for what? to fight against whom? against the Revolutionary Government, which has the support of all the people?”. The audience present answered: “No!”
Officers, soldiers and revolutionary groups handed over their weapons. Later, many of them were executed or imprisoned.
-
Officers, soldiers and revolutionary groups handed over their weapons. Later, many of them were executed or imprisoned.
And any remaining officers or soldiers you aren't allowed to photograph.
-
A quick googling proves the opposite:
You mean "a quick googling provides a nameless source which states the opposite".
-
You mean "a quick googling provides a nameless source which states the opposite".
I thought the truth is so obvious that it didn’t require a specific attribution.
-
This has nothing to do with Brexit.
I don't think Cuba ever did, but there's a good chance we imported added-chemicals-fee sugar cane from there, or even rum (the great, orginal rum deal?), but we probably had all the cane we needed back in India, just in case. The cigars we could have done without.
A boringly obvious truism: the more you do to hurt a little guy the more he will hate you and figure ways to put tiny, sharp stones in your shoe.
;-)
-
And any remaining officers or soldiers you aren't allowed to photograph.
Unless they are still very pretty, why would you want to?
-
All I know that it is not allowed to photograph police officers or soldiers in Cuba. Since the proportion of women in these occupations is relatively low, it is safe to assume that they don't have many pretty officers there. Due to various circumstances, many pretty Cuban girls resorted to another, much more lucrative occupation.
-
All I know that it is not allowed to photograph police officers or soldiers in Cuba. Since the proportion of women in these occupations is relatively low, it is safe to assume that they don't have many pretty officers there. Due to various circumstances, many pretty Cuban girls resorted to another, much more lucrative occupation.
I know; some years ago a British photographer (Paul Harvey) who did some BCal airline calendars went there to shoot a tit 'n' ass calendar for a UK steel company. The making-of video (shot by his wife, before making-of videos existed) was called The Cuban Nipple Crisis and was taken up and aired on tv, possibly the BBC - yes, just confirmed in the link:
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/39265a486dc347bfb5a36e30a4cbce03
After the shoot with the usual imported-on-trip Brit models we all knew and loved, he went to a Cuban model agency and picked up a girl to do some fashion pictures; memory tells me we didn't get to see much of that work, but the girls in the agency looked lovely.
All that aside, if you can find it online somewhere (had a copy on video tape for years, until, it was unplayable, along with all the rest of the videos I had) because of being shot by his wife with all that access to the highs and lows, it is the closest thing to my own reality of such trips that I've seen. When high, it's great, but when it's low it drags you down to the depths of despair not just because of the possibility of losing a client, but of the opportunity of making great work being sabotaged in front of your very eyes, and you pretty much powerless to do anything about it.
Not much to do with Brexit either, but a testament to the resilience of some Brit snappers, that Dunkirk spirit, if you will!
-
All I know that it is not allowed to photograph police officers or soldiers in Cuba.
That's a pretty common state of affairs, no?
(On a trip to Nigeria I encountered a stunningly beautiful girl in fatigues and carrying a large gun. It would have made an exceptional photo. Luckily my sense of self-preservation kicked in for once!) )
Since the proportion of women in these occupations is relatively low, it is safe to assume that they don't have many pretty officers there. Due to various circumstances, many pretty Cuban girls resorted to another, much more lucrative occupation.
Of course prostitution was unheard of during the good old Batista days!!
-
One week after seizing power, Fidel Castro said: “Weapons for what? to fight against whom? against the Revolutionary Government, which has the support of all the people?”. The audience present answered: “No!”
Officers, soldiers and revolutionary groups handed over their weapons. Later, many of them were executed or imprisoned.
Hmm ... so what did they use to repel the Bay of Pigs invaders? The power of love?
-
That's a pretty common state of affairs, no?
1. (On a trip to Nigeria I encountered a stunningly beautiful girl in fatigues and carrying a large gun. It would have made an exceptional photo. Luckily my sense of self-preservation kicked in for once!) )
2. Of course prostitution was unheard of during the good old Batista days!
1. Perhaps you could have asked her? Probably spoke English.
2. Perhaps it was better-paid in those days?
I often wonder at the sobriquet "sex worker"; smells of western hypocrisy and the general inability to call a spade a spade; as if, somehow, it sweetened the pill of reality.
;-)
-
How can anyone defend the brutal Castro. Maduro's not much better. Where are private Venezuelan guns?
-
How can anyone defend the brutal Castro.
Nobody is doing. However, if you wish to attack him, please do so on the basis of facts, and don't just make stuff up - it makes you look like a bit of a fanatic.
-
1. Perhaps you could have asked her? Probably spoke English.
Perhaps, but experience suggests that the less contact with military-looking people in Nigeria the better.
-
Nobody is doing. However, if you wish to attack him, please do so on the basis of facts, and don't just make stuff up - it makes you look like a bit of a fanatic.
On the second day after he took power, Castro sent his soldiers around the country. They confiscated weapons using the ownership lists created by his predecessor that he overthrew, Batista. The first guns he confiscated were from rival revolutionary groups who weren't Communist like him. So he eliminated his immediate rivals first followed by any other citizens who might be thinking of overthrowing him. 60 years later, the Castro dictators are still in charge. The Cuban people still aren't free. That's the truth. I'm not a fanatic.
-
How can anyone defend the brutal Castro. Maduro's not much better. Where are private Venezuelan guns?
As someone else stated, no one has defended Castro. Stop trolling.
Come to that, I think we need an equivalent of Godwin's law for socialist-baiting. It seems as if it's impossible to criticize some aspects of modern commerce without invoking the extreme reaction of being Stalin's fellow travellers. It has surfaced from time to time in these pages and it's silly. (If I remember right, one regular commentator in this section referred to California's Stalinist Economy, presumably an overreaction to the state's support of the Democratic party. Calling California, of all places, a hotbed of socialism boggles the mind.)
Your fascination with an armed citizenry seems over the top to me. The idea that we need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from the government is a little out of time. But just to prolong the discussion, were you ok with the Black Panthers arming themselves and calling themselves a militia to protect civil rights marchers? Because, if memory serves (and it's kind of vague, I'll admit), I think they were arrested for behaving pretty much the way those militia were behaving in Charlottesville a year or two back.
The US Constitution is a model document, no question. But it didn't prevent slavery or the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the 14th amendment did not prevent Jim Crow. Nor has it done much about the attacks on habeas corpus in modern times. As a backdrop to legislation, it is an important document, but it might be better to regard it as a working document, like any other, rather than attach quasi-religious reverence to it, because it hasn't always helped the people who needed protection the most.
-
The Constitution isn't perfect. But it's kept Americans free or made them free for over two hundred years. That's not bad. What's come in second?
-
...Calling California, of all places, a hotbed of socialism...
Yes!
-
Your fascination with an armed citizenry seems over the top to me. The idea that we need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from the government is a little out of time. But just to prolong the discussion, were you ok with the Black Panthers arming themselves and calling themselves a militia to protect civil rights marchers? Because, if memory serves (and it's kind of vague, I'll admit), I think they were arrested for behaving pretty much the way those militia were behaving in Charlottesville a year or two back.
Correct and ironically, it sparked a movement towards gun control as people wanted weapons taken away from the Panthers.
-
Correct and ironically, it sparked a movement towards gun control as people wanted weapons taken away from the Panthers.
Everyone can have weapons as long as they're legally kept and used. I don't own any myself. My wife would have a fit.
-
The Constitution isn't perfect. But it's kept Americans free or made them free for over two hundred years. That's not bad. What's come in second?
Actually, it is second.
What comes in first place is the Magna Carta, which predates it by eons.
You really should try do as most Europeans do; remove the rose tinteds once in a while and recognize the massive imperfections that surround us all.
Your system sucks every bit as much as any other in the first world. Accept it and relax: you don't face Brexit; your own nightmares have come to visit already.
;-)
-
... What comes in first place is the Magna Carta...
That was a distribution of power among the 1%-ers.
-
That was a distribution of power among the 1%-ers.
Heard of the concept of revisionism?
It was the best thing since sliced venison!
:-)
-
You can't make this stuff up. Note the UK winner of the competition "Our World is Beautiful" ;D
-
You can't make this stuff up. Note the UK winner of the competition "Our World is Beautiful" ;D
I can see why it might fit in a thread about Artists' Statements, but into one on Brexit?
If you refer to the irony of the name of the competition and the pollution of the train, yes, indeed.
But hey, that's the world of the amateur photographer; what did you expect?
-
Thank God there is still belief in the freedom of speech in Britain:
"Boris Johnson, favorite to be Britain's next PM, wins court challenge over alleged Brexit lies"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/uk/boris-johnson-misconduct-trial-gbr-intl/index.html
-
Thank God there is still belief in the freedom of speech in Britain:
"Boris Johnson, favorite to be Britain's next PM, wins court challenge over alleged Brexit lies"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/uk/boris-johnson-misconduct-trial-gbr-intl/index.html
Unfortunately, that's just as worthy as the Trump case where he was kinda, sorta, but not absolutely cleared of guilt...
That people in public office are now allowed to lie, openly and without - it would seem - running the risk of being held responsible for barefaced lies, is frightening indeed, and it's surprising that Slobodan would appear to be lauding such behaviour as a freedom of speech issue. Oh well, live and learn; perhaps it's the Floridian humidity to blame. It's the kindest explanation I can come up with in the circumstances. To me, it's the sort of political whitewashing one might expect to hear about in China or Russia.
-
...That people in public office are now allowed to lie...
Now!?
How about from the down of the mankind? In a democracy, it is punished or not by voting, not jail. The opposite indeed invokes Soviet Russia and China.
-
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
-
Unfortunately, that's just as worthy as the Trump case where he was kinda, sorta, but not absolutely cleared of guilt...
That people in public office are now allowed to lie, openly and without - it would seem - running the risk of being held responsible for barefaced lies, is frightening indeed, and it's surprising that Slobodan would appear to be lauding such behaviour as a freedom of speech issue. Oh well, live and learn; perhaps it's the Floridian humidity to blame. It's the kindest explanation I can come up with in the circumstances. To me, it's the sort of political whitewashing one might expect to hear about in China or Russia.
Note also the case of women whose pension age was raised - a lawyer for the government has argued that there is no obligation on their part to notify or consider the predicament of the victims of a policy decision. Apparently the government can now do anything it wants without any available challenge.
-
Now!?
How about from the down of the mankind? In a democracy, it is punished or not by voting, not jail. The opposite indeed invokes Soviet Russia and China.
The difference lies in being given licence to lie and just lying.
That's kinda crucial, don't you think?
-
The difference lies in being given licence to lie and just lying.
That's kinda crucial, don't you think?
No, I do not. Freedom of speech implies a license to lie.
-
No, I do not. Freedom of speech implies a license to lie.
Try some water or tonic with it next round!
:-)
-
In a democracy, it is punished or not by voting, not jail.
Depends on the lie. Sometimes it's electioneering bs, sometimes it's a crime. You can't possibly be saying that politicians are above the law.
-
Depends on the lie. Sometimes it's electioneering bs, sometimes it's a crime. You can't possibly be saying that politicians are above the law.
Which law criminalizes political lying?
-
Which law criminalizes political lying?
Libel. You may not claim your opponent is corrupt without proof for example. Or better, you can claim it, but freedom of speech isn't going to protect you.
However, a true politician will cunningly say "I suspect you of yada yada, and I will proof it bla bla" and then the damage is also done without the actual claim.
-
Libel. You may not claim your opponent is corrupt without proof for example. Or better, you can claim it, but freedom of speech isn't going to protect you.
However, a true politician will cunningly say "I suspect you of yada yada, and I will proof it bla bla" and then the damage is also done without the actual claim.
Libel is a civil matter, not criminal. It is not the government that is after you for libel, but the person you offended.
-
Try some water or tonic with it next round!
Rob, good whisky deserves to be enjoyed neat ;)
-
Rob, good whisky deserves to be enjoyed neat ;)
That is probably true, but whiskey?
;-)
-
Unfortunately, that's just as worthy as the Trump case where he was kinda, sorta, but not absolutely cleared of guilt...
It would be prudent to withhold comment until the judgment of the Divisional Court is handed down; at present, we have only the decision, without the reasons. Johnson's argument was simply that the charge - misconduct in public office - was misconceived and the prosecution both politically-motivated and vexatious. The earlier District Judge's decision, which is available here (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Ball-v-Johnson-FV-290519.pdf), made no sense.
Jeremy
edit: added link to DJ's judgment
-
It would be prudent to withhold comment until the judgment of the Divisional Court is handed down; at present, we have only the decision, without the reasons. Johnson's argument was simply that the charge - misconduct in public office - was misconceived and the prosecution both politically-motivated and vexatious. The earlier District Judge's decision, which is available here (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Ball-v-Johnson-FV-290519.pdf), made no sense.
Jeremy
edit: added link to DJ's judgment
Prudent withholding comes at a price: loss of the apposite moment!
I'm sure there's a "French" man of letters who could vouch for that...
:-)
-
The article might be behind a paywall, but I thought the illustration speaks for itself:
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/06/20/which-boris-would-britain-get
In Europe we analyse the career of the overwhelming favourite to become Britain’s next prime minister. Boris Johnson has assumed different guises at different times. As mayor of liberal, cosmopolitan London in 2008-16 he preached the virtues of immigration and the single market. As a leading light in the Leave campaign he effortlessly switched to criticising migration and warning of the dangers of Turkish membership of the EU, which he had previously advocated. Today he talks up the prospect of leaving the EU without a deal. As the Brexit saga drags on, Britain is growing ever more polarised. In a starkly divided country, which gallery would Mr Johnson play to?
-
Reminds me of what I suppose a post-Brexit Britain will be offering its people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww5bGpbDcXY
-
The article might be behind a paywall, but I thought the illustration speaks for itself:
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/06/20/which-boris-would-britain-get
And the lemmings cheer, and order another round of beer.
Rob
-
Rob - my Plan B is to move to Ireland. Have you thought of that?
-
Rob - my Plan B is to move to Ireland. Have you thought of that?
Yes, like the left in the US promised to move to Canada. Nobody did.
-
Yes, like the left in the US promised to move to Canada. Nobody did.
Not really. Depending on the exact Brexit outcome my family may not be able to stay together in the UK, so Plan B would become Plan A.
As a matter of interest, do USAns have the right to move to Canada?
-
As a matter of interest, do USAns have the right to move to Canada?
They have the same rights to move to Canada as you would, no more, no less. Compliance with Canadian immigration laws, visas, work permits, etc.
-
Rob - my Plan B is to move to Ireland. Have you thought of that?
If you mean the southern one, it wouldn't help: as it's part of the European deal, it would be the same as staying here in Spain. Staying in Spain, with the negotiated deal, guarantees me health services access in Spain, but not elsewhere in Europe whereas leaving without that deal, the lemming way, means I'm screwed.
The only place I'd eventually get health services back would be in the UK, which becomes doubtful, because the system will probably collapse without the foreign staff at all levels of it. So rather than enjoying the mythical 350 million squids a week, it will just freeze to a standstill.
Many folks never think these things through until the things hit them, and then it's too late.
France24.com just did an interesting weekly news review, including an item on recent Tory voters who would be happy to see the break-up of the UK as long as they get Brexit. It appears as if the recognized parties are losing both identity and purpose, as happened recently in France, which saw outsider Macron sweep to power. Those Torries would even be happy enough to have Farage as next leader! The Brexit mania has swept everything else aside.
Rob
-
If you mean the southern one, it wouldn't help: as it's part of the European deal, it would be the same as staying here in Spain. Staying in Spain, with the negotiated deal, guarantees me health services access in Spain, but not elsewhere in Europe whereas leaving without that deal, the lemming way, means I'm screwed.
That's just it - Brits have the right to live in Ireland and receive health care etc there. Only place in the EU that were guaranteed to be able to move!
-
France24.com just did an interesting weekly news review, including an item on recent Tory voters who would be happy to see the break-up of the UK as long as they get Brexit.
Coincidentally, a couple of days ago I hacked the graphic accompanying a report of the YouGov poll on which that story must have been based.....
-
That's just it - Brits have the right to live in Ireland and receive health care etc there. Only place in the EU that were guaranteed to be able to move!
Is there any reference material to that? I knew it was a sort of modest tax haven for artists and such, but not sure if that applied to other grades of people.
But that asked, it wouldn't really matter: if I manage to sell here, I'd be moving away because it's for inheritance tax purposes regarding my kids, and I'd return to Scotland. The problem is that sales here to Brits (at my modest level) are mostly on hold because of the current Brexit uncertainty, and so my dependency on local services could continue for years ahead. The Brits were the main movers of real estate. With a sunken pound, that could become even worse a situation for them buying, but better for me selling, if anyone would buy.
I would get access to the health services back there in Scotland because of being British, plus the benefit of seeing more of the kids, now and again.
-
Is there any reference material to that? I knew it was a sort of modest tax haven for artists and such, but not sure if that applied to other grades of people.
Sure - it’s on the gov.uk website if you google “right to live in Ireland “ or some such.
But that asked, it wouldn't really matter: if I manage to sell here, I'd be moving away because it's for inheritance tax purposes regarding my kids, and I'd return to Scotland. The problem is that sales here to Brits (at my modest level) are mostly on hold because of the current Brexit uncertainty, and so my dependency on local services could continue for years ahead. The Brits were the main movers of real estate. With a sunken pound, that could become even worse a situation for them buying, but better for me selling, if anyone would buy.
I would get access to the health services back there in Scotland because of being British, plus the benefit of seeing more of the kids, now and again.
Fair enough - my situation is different in that family members are non-UK and I’d like to see them daily, not just via Skype. Plus I’d like to live in a country that is more outward-looking than Brexit-land
-
Sure - it’s on the gov.uk website if you google “right to live in Ireland “ or some such.
Fair enough - my situation is different in that family members are non-UK and I’d like to see them daily, not just via Skype. Plus I’d like to live in a country that is more outward-looking than Brexit-land
Where do you live, Jeremy? Where do your family members live?
-
Where do you live, Jeremy? Where do your family members live?
I live in the UK. Right now my family members live here also Post Brexit they are not guaranteed to be able to do so, so a prudent person looks for Plan B. Right now the only place that I know of where UK nationals and E.U. nationals will be able to live together AS OF RIGHT is Ireland.
-
I live in the UK. Right now my family members live here also Post Brexit they are not guaranteed to be able to do so, so a prudent person looks for Plan B. Right now the only place that I know of where UK nationals and E.U. nationals will be able to live together AS OF RIGHT is Ireland.
And it's the AS OF RIGHT aspect that so many Brexiteers seem to have overlooked regarding their own chances of working or living in Europe at some future stage in their life. They may well not want to right now, but who knows how they may feel later in life?
It appears it's the thing the old have done to the chances of the young. Much like climate change seems to be: we are ignoring our responsibilities to our children. It's not good enough for folks to say: that's their problem, let 'em fix it themselves.
Rob
-
And it's the ASS OF RIGHT aspect ...
Yeah, such a right would really suck ;)
-
Why couldn't a BRit work on the continent after Brexit?
-
Why couldn't a BRit work on the continent after Brexit?
First world problem. The sky falls if they have to apply for a work visa or residency permit, something the rest of the world has been doing forever.
-
Why couldn't a BRit work on the continent after Brexit?
For 40 years there have been no restrictions, so we've been able to do so as freely as someone from NY might move to CA, or might retire to AZ, with no state intervention. I am one of millions who took advantage of that, both as employee and employer. Stick work/residency permits in the way and it's more akin to trying to move to the US.
-
Why couldn't a BRit work on the continent after Brexit?
What if they don’t want to work , just live, as Rob does now (I guess)? What if they don’t have a specific skill identified by another country, or are the wrong age or whatever?
-
Yeah, such a right would really suck ;)
In recent months I have realised that far from being the party I thought I was supporting, the right is a collection of donkeys.
Moira, my old white nag in the field, has more common sense. At least she knows from whence her carrots come.
;-)
-
Why couldn't a BRit work on the continent after Brexit?
They could work, by invitation, but not by their own choice without having such an invitation first. Whilst in the EU, anyone with the desire to up sticks and go to another member country can do just that (like you Americans going from state to state - you still can, can't you?).
Sadly, being both by nature and nurture of an insular mindset, some fear the dragons they are sure lie in wait beyond the comforting barrier of the sea, but celebrate and embrace unicorns of their own manufacture.
You may begin to understand the uphill struggle to reach the higher ground of freedom of movement.
-
First world problem. The sky falls if they have to apply for a work visa or residency permit, something the rest of the world has been doing forever.
It wasn't that simple in Spain.
If you wanted to set up a business as, for example, a representative company for a group of UK tour operators, you had to have a Spanish partner in the company you set up. I know this from the experiences of an early client working here and on the UK side.
It wasn't just a matter of applying for a permit and off you go. I am led to believe that Italy and France were even more tangled up in red tape; for them, at least, the EU has also been a bit of a liberating wind of change.
-
What if they don’t want to work , just live, as Rob does now (I guess)? What if they don’t have a specific skill identified by another country, or are the wrong age or whatever?
There have been many changes over the years and since the demise of Franco, but as far as I can trust my memory, you could come to live here if you could show yourself to be in receipt of a pension and have it paid here. At the time, I think that once you hit pensionable age, you were granted Spanish health facilities.
For younger people, as myself - I was just in my early forties - life worked around a three-month limit, and you collected a series of flight tickets proving you'd not lived in Spain continuously longer than three months, and you took care to get your passport stamped. They sold you lots of passports in them thar days! Younger, you either took a chance on immortality or bought private health insurance. Once both Spain and Britain were in it (the EU), all that was shoved aside and you became free and equal.
But it was no guarantee of success: many Brits thought the good life meant buying a pub; they often lost the lot. In any country you have to find your own success - there are failed Spaniards as there are failed expats. The working hours of a Spanish bar would dismay many a British pub owner: some are open at sparrow fart, providing breakfast to workmen before they go off to their jobs, and they close with the last drunk standing.
-
They could work, by invitation, but not by their own choice without having such an invitation first. Whilst in the EU, anyone with the desire to up sticks and go to another member country can do just that (like you Americans going from state to state - you still can, can't you?).
Sadly, being both by nature and nurture of an insular mindset, some fear the dragons they are sure lie in wait beyond the comforting barrier of the sea, but celebrate and embrace unicorns of their own manufacture.
You may begin to understand the uphill struggle to reach the higher ground of freedom of movement.
"In 2017, there were 27.4 million foreign-born persons in the U.S. labor force, comprising 17.1 percent of the total."
Note: An American employer has to sponsor a foreigner to get a work visa. I once did a favor for a cab driver I knew (I think from some Middle Eastern country) and looking for a job. I helped him get that paper and secure a job here. 30-40 years ago. Nice fellow.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf)
Comparing inter-State freedom in America to Inter-nation access in Europe is not the same. All 50 American states are in America. States are constitutionally forbidden to set up "home rules" for their own residents. After all, we're all Americans. On the other hand, it doesn;t seem that "unfair" to expect countries to limit immigration of foreigners who might take the work of nationals. How would a Parisian feel he couldn't get a job in France because a Londoner was hired in his place at a slightly lesser salary? That's the kind of issue that's going on in America right now with a lot of foreign engineers being hired in Silicon Valley at quite excellent salaries but not as high as they would have to pay Americans. "Illegals" take the job of Americans at the lower end of the pay range as well, one of the reasons Americans complain about illegal immigration coming from south of our border.
Doesn't similar things happen in Europe? Do EU countries complain about that too?
-
Comparing inter-State freedom in America to Inter-nation access in Europe is not the same. All 50 American states are in America. States are constitutionally forbidden to set up "home rules" for their own residents. After all, we're all Americans.
Please read the answers to your previous question. It has been like that in Europe.
-
Please read the answers to your previous question. It has been like that in Europe.
I don't understand your point. Europe isn't like America as each nation there is sovereign. Each nation's peoples are different, speak different languages, have different customs, DNA, different political parties, etc.
-
"In 2017, there were 27.4 million foreign-born persons in the U.S. labor force, comprising 17.1 percent of the total."
Note: An American employer has to sponsor a foreigner to get a work visa. I once did a favor for a cab driver I knew (I think from some Middle Eastern country) and looking for a job. I helped him get that paper and secure a job here. 30-40 years ago. Nice fellow.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf)
Comparing inter-State freedom in America to Inter-nation access in Europe is not the same. All 50 American states are in America. States are constitutionally forbidden to set up "home rules" for their own residents. After all, we're all Americans. On the other hand, it doesn;t seem that "unfair" to expect countries to limit immigration of foreigners who might take the work of nationals. How would a Parisian feel he couldn't get a job in France because a Londoner was hired in his place at a slightly lesser salary? That's the kind of issue that's going on in America right now with a lot of foreign engineers being hired in Silicon Valley at quite excellent salaries but not as high as they would have to pay Americans. "Illegals" take the job of Americans at the lower end of the pay range as well, one of the reasons Americans complain about illegal immigration coming from south of our border.
Doesn't similar things happen in Europe? Do EU countries complain about that too?
The people who attract the hatred of some of the working-class Brits are people who come to Britain prepared to work in lowly paid jobs that the indigenous Brit will not accept because he's often better off on the dole. Those jobs would never be filled, and as with your own MacJobbers, only students or the otherwise desperate apply for them. Who wants to pick strawberries, make beds, wash dishes in restaurants? But how would western society function without those willing to accept that the work is low-grade? Raise wages to higher levels and many restaurants and hotels would have to close for ever: customers could not afford to frequent them. I've already touched on an insider view on what would happen to the British health service if all foreign employees were made to feel unwelcome, and, worse, barred. As with you and your Mexicans, South Americans et al. you need 'em to keep the wheels going round, however much some may hate their presence. Some of the Brits above the working-class, who may have a broad enough perspective of life outwith the market town or industrial unit, often share the hatred of the foreigner. In some ways, it could be said that their state of mind is even less understandable: they must know the consequences, surely, or are dreams of a Phoenix British Empire still alive and well in some schools and families?
Regarding Paris: it's like London: so bloody expensive that without a big comany sending you across to work there on their behalf and on their payroll, those top jobs are only going to be filled by the best qualified people those companies have! Those folks sure don't work for peanuts - anywhere.
I can't think of a person I know who is highly qualified, who would work for less than he can get, regardless of location. Only artists, photographers and sundry other mad dogs do that kind of thing.
Rob
-
I don't understand your point. Europe isn't like America as each nation there is sovereign. Each nation's peoples are different, speak different languages, have different customs, DNA, different political parties, etc.
Everybody has different DNA.
As has been pointed out, the European deal created the equivalent of your States without sacrificing sovereignty. That you don't know this is not surprising: thousands of people have been attempting to pretend that sovereignty was lost. Real fake news. Common rules were agreed. Some countries went more deeply into them than others; Britain was so far out on exceptions that it was virtually already reaping more than it sowed. But yet it wasn't enough for the Empire romantics.
How many different languages go the rounds in America? I believe more now speak Spanish than English...
In the European setup, English was a lingua franca, and few were left unaware of what was being discussed; all those headphones were not just there to help spend money!
-
The people who attract the hatred of some of the working-class Brits are people who come to Britain prepared to work in lowly paid jobs that the indigenous Brit will not accept because he's often better off on the dole. Those jobs would never be filled, and as with your own MacJobbers, only students or the otherwise desperate apply for them. Who wants to pick strawberries, make beds, wash dishes in restaurants? But how would western society function without those willing to accept that the work is low-grade? Raise wages to higher levels and many restaurants and hotels would have to close for ever: customers could not afford to frequent them. I've already touched on an insider view on what would happen to the British health service if all foreign employees were made to feel unwelcome, and, worse, barred. As with you and your Mexicans, South Americans et al. you need 'em to keep the wheels going round, however much some may hate their presence. Some of the Brits above the working-class, who may have a broad enough perspective of life outwith the market town or industrial unit, often share the hatred of the foreigner. In some ways, it could be said that their state of mind is even less understandable: they must know the consequences, surely, or are dreams of a Phoenix British Empire still alive and well in some schools and families?
Regarding Paris: it's like London: so bloody expensive that without a big comany sending you across to work there on their behalf and on their payroll, those top jobs are only going to be filled by the best qualified people those companies have! Those folks sure don't work for peanuts - anywhere.
I can't think of a person I know who is highly qualified, who would work for less than he can get, regardless of location. Only artists, photographers and sundry other mad dogs do that kind of thing.
Rob
Problem in America is that many illegals wind up on the "dole" too costing taxpayers a lot of money too. They get free services, medical care, their kids go to free government run schools that the taxpayers are paying for. 2/3rds of my property taxes are for educating kids and schools. (It costs taxpayers $18,000 per kid just for schooling here in New Jersey). So the cost of eating out also includes hidden taxes being paid for these people. Without their labor, my restaurant and food bills might be higher. But lower taxes would more than make up for it. The issue is also political. Democrats want to make them "legal" so they can get their votes and change the American political system forever.
-
Everybody has different DNA.
As has been pointed out, the European deal created the equivalent of your States without sacrificing sovereignty. That you don't know this is not surprising: thousands of people have been attempting to pretend that sovereignty was lost. Real fake news. Common rules were agreed. Some countries went more deeply into them than others; Britain was so far out on exceptions that it was virtually already reaping more than it sowed. But yet it wasn't enough for the Empire romantics.
How many different languages go the rounds in America? I believe more now speak Spanish than English...
In the European setup, English was a lingua franca, and few were left unaware of what was being discussed; all those headphones were not just there to help spend money!
I figured that would stir some things up. :) Actually, I was thinking of the blonde Scandinavian vs. the dark skinned Mediterranean. Vive la difference. :)
I'm not the one saying sovereignty was lost. I don;t know enough about the EU and that issue. However, apparently a majority of Brits said that when they voted for Brexit. Also, language is very important in a country. I believe one language pulls a people together. The "second" language of Spanish in America will eventually help tear America apart as did French almost in Canada when French speaking Quebec province tried to split away from English speaking Canada a few years back. One people should have one language although I wonder sometimes about my Brooklyn born wife. :)
-
... How many different languages go the rounds in America? I believe more now speak Spanish than English...
Rob, of the many fine qualities you have, being a clairvoyant is the one I envy the most ;)
-
A 30-year old video clip explains Brexit:
https://www.facebook.com/forgottenireland.ie/videos/944542782421736?s=581126504&v=e&sfns=mo
-
Scots want Independence if Boris becomes pm.
http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish-vote-for-independence-if-boris-johnson-becomes-prime-minister-2019-6
-
Rob, of the many fine qualities you have, being a clairvoyant is the one I envy the most ;)
It's a gift.
:-)
-
A 30-year old video clip explains Brexit:
https://www.facebook.com/forgottenireland.ie/videos/944542782421736?s=581126504&v=e&sfns=mo
Yes, comedy.
And how flawed, twenty years later. Twenty years later, one discovers that it's Britain that ended up disunited more so than the others. Still accurate about the politicians, though: cynical to the core. But isn't that a prerequisite for all of them?
-
A view on European immigration from a different angle - emigration (emphasis mine):
"Eastern Europe’s Emigration Crisis"
...In the last century, Eastern Europe has suffered the most dramatic population decline in recent history. According to one study, between 2013 and 2016, approximately 230,000 people left Croatia—a country with a population of only four million—for the 11 “core EU countries” of Western Europe...
...Since Latvia joined the EU, it has lost one-fifth of its population. Romania, a country that according to one organisation is due to see the most drastic population decline, has seen over three million leave the country since it joined the EU in 2007. It lost half of its doctors between 2009 and 2015, the vast majority to better-paid employ in the richer hospitals and surgeries of Western Europe, leaving its health service poorly staffed and on the brink of collapse. High mortality (including infant mortality) and low birthrates are only accelerating the decline...
https://quillette.com/2019/06/29/eastern-europes-emigration-crisis/?fbclid=IwAR0keG3g6ZcmkVYNPazANb4NcZlI-V5VoGPt9LqBar__O56ZMxqyYfy8CQg
-
Just for the fun of being devil's advocate, the basis for all a lot of anti-immigration sentiment seems to be that some places should be only inhabited by fair-skinned more or less Christian people. What is the argument for this? I hope it's not historical, because in Quebec, one of the francophone partisan points of view is that the land (the actual territory) of what is now known as Quebec is francophone territory on the strength that mainly French immigrants (about 80%) have inhabited the area for 400-500 years. When indigenous people (who lived on the same dirt for 5000 years previous) simply laugh at this arrogance.
Who says that the land is yours? And who is this "you" anyway? Countries have a right to determine levels of immigration and who gets in, but for some reason the discussion does not take place in that relatively sane frame. Instead, it's mostly tribal bullshit.
On a related note, would the US be housing those children on the border in those conditions (with recent reports of abuse of various kinds) if they were white? That is, how loud would be the outcry then be?
These are longer term rhetorical questions, btw, and it is irrelevant to direct the answers to me. Whether or not I convince you (and I'm not trying to) or whether you try to convince me
is completely beside the point. I suggest the questions mostly as an examination of conscience.
-
... some places should be only inhabited by fair-skinned more or less Christian people....
"Should" is the typical leftist social-engineering approach. It is not a matter what should be (who's to say, anyway?) but what is.
It is also a "veni, vidi, vici" approach. Those who "laugh" at it are conquered. We won and we say the land is ours. We want to keep it that way. We do not want a weaponized brownization. We might lose that battle in the coming decades, due to the left, feminists, and white sissies, but not without a fight.
-
Well, Europe was mainly white from the start - unless you want to include the offspring of those wanderers from the Rift Valley thousands of years earlier.
Quite why they wanted out I'm not sure: maybe it was climate-driven, or they couldn't buy the spears that modern tribesmen have. Of course, the elephants and rhinos and crocs were bigger, not to mention the spiders and snakes, so human optimism must, even then, have suggested taking a trip.
But that was a long time ago. Colour and religion are the obvious first barriers between people, and for every liberal (?) who tries to tell you otherwise, your eyes can't be fooled and neither your priests. (They are more likely to be able to fool more of the people more of the time, as millions of people prove every day.)
Language, of course, plays a big part too because of communication or otherwise; wasn't that big a problem in France at the end of WW2, though, as many smiling GIs and Tommies were happy to discover. Vive la France! Pretty, foreign women suffer even less because of language: somebody always tries to help.
Nationality is like a form of extended family, before extended family became to mean something else. Nobody is tickled pink to imagine some alien creature is going to bed and wed their daughter, and that's the nub of the whole goddam problem: folks don't want to dilute the line, however messy it may be already. It's so blindingly obvious, why can't it just be faced and accepted for the fact that it is? It's nothing new or revolutionary, just victim of contemporary, forced open-mindedness in aspects of folks' lives where folks don't want to be open-minded, thank you very much indeed.
-
Just for the fun of being devil's advocate, the basis for all a lot of anti-immigration sentiment seems to be that some places should be only inhabited by fair-skinned more or less Christian people. What is the argument for this? I hope it's not historical, because in Quebec, one of the francophone partisan points of view is that the land (the actual territory) of what is now known as Quebec is francophone territory on the strength that mainly French immigrants (about 80%) have inhabited the area for 400-500 years. When indigenous people (who lived on the same dirt for 5000 years previous) simply laugh at this arrogance.
Who says that the land is yours? And who is this "you" anyway? Countries have a right to determine levels of immigration and who gets in, but for some reason the discussion does not take place in that relatively sane frame. Instead, it's mostly tribal bullshit.
On a related note, would the US be housing those children on the border in those conditions (with recent reports of abuse of various kinds) if they were white? That is, how loud would be the outcry then be?
These are longer term rhetorical questions, btw, and it is irrelevant to direct the answers to me. Whether or not I convince you (and I'm not trying to) or whether you try to convince me
is completely beside the point. I suggest the questions mostly as an examination of conscience.
America welcomes immigrants as their grandparents once were. Unlike most countries, we're an immigrant nation, so there's a place for everyone. In the end, we want immigrants to come in legally, as over one million do every year.
Last night I went to a comedy club in New Brunswick, New Jersey called the Stress Factory. All the comedians were Muslim including the Arab girl who introduced all the comedians and was pretty funny herself. The mainliner was Mo Amer who was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents, and came to America as an asylum-seeker after the first Gulf War and became a US citizen in 2009. He saw his assignment as a golden opportunity, both as a Muslim, an American and a comedian. The guy was very funny, used self deprecation as well as making fun of how Americans sometime interact with him. My wife and I were there with another couple. Every time I looked over at my friend, he was not smiling. I thought he wasn't getting Mo's jokes. It turns out my 82 year-old friend just couldn't hear through his hearing aid. Oh well.
Here's a sample of his work. Watch it - it's pretty funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QviPgC3Vmms (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QviPgC3Vmms)
-
PS, There were a bunch of Muslims in the audience including women with hijabs including Palestinians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Lebanese, etc who were getting in on the fun but mostly plain old white, non-Muslim people like me who laughed it up and thought he was great.
-
"Should" is the typical leftist social-engineering approach. It is not a matter what should be (who's to say, anyway?) but what is.
It's so much fun seeing you attach importance to a word so that you can end up at your default conclusion, which is to tangentially insult someone by calling them socialist.
-
PS, There were a bunch of Muslims in the audience including women with hijabs including Palestinians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Lebanese, etc who were getting in on the fun but mostly plain old white, non-Muslim people like me who laughed it up and thought he was great.
Oh, that's all right then, people were laughing and having a good time. Remind anyone of black tap dancers and musicians doing their self-mocking numbers for "laughs" before the 70s? Even Satchmo wasn't beyond the rolling eyes thing at times, as if he needed it. I guess fame never makes you secure enough when you have the background.
:-)
-
PS, There were a bunch of Muslims in the audience including women with hijabs including Palestinians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Lebanese, etc who were getting in on the fun but mostly plain old white, non-Muslim people like me who laughed it up and thought he was great.
The province of Quebec recently passed a law that forbids the wearing of religious symbols by anyone employed by the province. The criteria is quite wide in that it applies to teachers who are actually employed by school boards that are sanctioned by the provincial education department so the legislation does not strictly apply to only civil servant employees, i.e., those that work directly in government administration. I believe, for example, that is also applies to city bus drivers, for example, but I'm not 100% about that. One things it means is that Sikhs cannot work in some occupations, such as the police for example. That last one is odd because Sikhs are allowed in the federal RCMP force. Many have distinguished themselves in the military as well, but in Quebec, they need not apply for some jobs.
They worded it in a very general way but it is obviously directed at the wearing of head gear by muslim women. This is interesting in many ways.
The first and obvious one is the very notion that the government has the right to tell people how to dress. Personally speaking, in this vein I think they should outlaw hoodies on teenagers because it interferes with me picking them out of police line-ups.
The second is the timing. I wonder if they would have introduced this kind of regulation when Roman Catholic nuns still wore their old-style habits, as many of them were employed as teachers in Quebec parochial schools. This method of dress, moderation-plus, I'll call it, was pretty common among Victorian women as well. Presumably Amish women could not get jobs in the Quebec civil service, but they wisely opt out of modern society anyway.
A third way is the argument, made by my Moroccan muslim neighbour and others, is that the wearing of head gear is not a religious requirement or symbol anyway. It is only practitioners in some cultures that cover their heads, many muslim traditions do not require their women to cover their heads. So it's more and Arab or Pakistani thing than a muslim thing. This point of view may be controversial in the muslim community, for all I know.
It will be interesting to see if there will be a court challenge of the law. It has the usual supporters, which include the usual suspects who feel the need to force foreigners behave in certain ways, for some reason. My parents, post-war Italian immigrants were dis-approved of in similar ways. During the partly xenophobic rise of the francophone separatist culture in Quebec, my father used to say, "The Fascists did that." If that's not too Godwin-line for you.
Anyway, as I stated earlier, it should be possible to discuss immigration in a rational cogent way, but at the moment it isn't. Your President didn't set the tone very helpfully when he called Mexicans drug dealers and rapists. The drug dealing charge was especially bizarre, as if the reason there are illegal drugs in the US is because those nasty foreigners bring them in, as if it's a supply problem. The reason that dealers import drugs into the US is because Americans are willing to pay such high prices for them. Insofar as it is a problem in the first place, it's an American problem not a foreigner problem. But we've probably had that discussion before.
-
... he called Mexicans drug dealers and rapists...
He did not.
That is, plain and simple, a lie, tired trope by now, and pigheaded partisan nonsense. Deliberate distortion. Strawman.
You, of all people, who constantly plead for open-minded discussion should know that.
-
The problem with wearing those head things etc. is touched upon perfectly in your reference to hoodies. I kinda remember some police forces in the UK tryng to get those outfits banned; did they succeed?
It really has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with today's world of terrorism. Hiding facial recognition features makes for perfect disguise. Covering everything even makes it possible for males to pretend to be women; known terrorists have used that to escape from under the noses of guards.
It's sad and unfortunate, but clothes that once would have inspired nothing but benign interest today offer the threat of hidden suicide vests, bombs and machine guns. You cannot permit that to exist where there is a way of preventing it, though I'm sure there are those who will loudly proclaim the freedom to wear radical clothes that hide deadly tools is a right, just as guns don't kill anyone, people do. Pure bloody literalist thinkers with blind spots as big as themselves.
Were it not so serious, it's the same funny logic as displayed by those who protest that folks with eastern looks get searched more often at airports etc. than whites: last I heard few of the latter were in the political/religious suicide business! Of course the other lot gets searched more often - isn't it obvious why?
For a while during our first years in Spain I did a lot of regular flying back and forth to the UK. On one flight back my teenage son accompanied me. We both wore jeans and I had a beard. We were stopped at customs. I smiled and asked the customs officer if the twin jeans had anything to do with it. He smiled back, but not without making us empty our cases. I had no problem with that. Look the part expect the consequences, and believe me, the more mules they stop the better.
-
PS, There were a bunch of Muslims in the audience including women with hijabs including Palestinians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Lebanese, etc who were getting in on the fun but mostly plain old white, non-Muslim people like me who laughed it up and thought he was great.
I looked at the first part of it, and found it loud and obnoxious. Definitely not the subtle British humour. The comedian must have been born in America.
Actually, I find Donald Trump much funnier.
-
Wearing head garb and religious artifacts are not banned in America. It would be a violation of our constitutional right of free speech. Certain professions may have restrictions due to the interference such garb may have. But otherwise it's allowed. Why would anyone think it's safer regarding terrorist. If they weren't wearing a beard or certain Muslim gard, it would be easier for them to be anonymous when carrying a bomb. Frankly, America is less paranoid and prejudiced about these things than Canada, Australia and Europe.
-
I looked at the first part of it, and found it loud and obnoxious. Definitely not the subtle British humour. The comedian must have been born in America.
Actually, I find Donald Trump much funnier.
Actually Tump can be very sardonically funny. Of course, the press who hates him, turns his every statement into something literal as if they don;t really understand where he's going with it. They play dumb and then accuse him of some horrible thoughts. They refuse to get the jokes.
-
He did not.
That is, plain and simple, a lie, tired trope by now, and pigheaded partisan nonsense. Deliberate distortion. Strawman.
You, of all people, who constantly plead for open-minded discussion should know that.
And he didn't toss paper towels at people either. Ok, ok, uncle, you win. :)
-
And he didn't toss paper towels at people either. Ok, ok, uncle, you win. :)
Would you prefer that he was tossing gallon-sized bottles of water? Besides, what that has to do with the lie you were telling?
“Uncle”? Is that a new type of personal insult?
-
Here's a sample of his work. Watch it - it's pretty funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QviPgC3Vmms (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QviPgC3Vmms)
Excellent!
-
Would you prefer that he was tossing gallon-sized bottles of water? Besides, what that has to do with the lie you were telling?
“Uncle”? Is that a new type of personal insult?
No, it's a kid's thing. When you're trying to get another kid to give up, you order him/her to say "uncle", as a sign of submission. I am giving up, you win.
-
No, it's a kid's thing. When you're trying to get another kid to give up, you order him/her to say "uncle", as a sign of submission. I am giving up, you win.
Ah, ok... now that you mentioned that angle, I remember it. I heard it only a couple of times in my life, in movies or tv probably. I thought you were making a reference to the proverbial "creepy uncle." :)
-
No, it's a kid's thing. When you're trying to get another kid to give up, you order him/her to say "uncle", as a sign of submission. I am giving up, you win.
We used that when I grew up in The Bronx in the 1950's. You'd have the guy in a headlock increasing the pressure and pain until he said, "Uncle". One of those stupid games you'd play when you're a kid. Where did you grow up?
-
The problem with wearing those head things etc. is touched upon perfectly in your reference to hoodies. I kinda remember some police forces in the UK tryng to get those outfits banned; did they succeed?
It really has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with today's world of terrorism. Hiding facial recognition features makes for perfect disguise.
What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/apr/11/china-hi-tech-war-on-muslim-minority-xinjiang-uighurs-surveillance-face-recognition
-
He did not.
That is, plain and simple, a lie, tired trope by now, and pigheaded partisan nonsense. Deliberate distortion. Strawman.
You, of all people, who constantly plead for open-minded discussion should know that.
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best."
"They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
-
What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/apr/11/china-hi-tech-war-on-muslim-minority-xinjiang-uighurs-surveillance-face-recognition
Even western experts at Google and elsewhere admit that Chinese tech companies now lead the world in these computer-vision technologies, due to the way the state funds Chinese companies to collect, use and report on the personal data of hundreds of millions of users across China.
Quite interesting article. Would make a good script for a sci-fi movie.
-
What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/apr/11/china-hi-tech-war-on-muslim-minority-xinjiang-uighurs-surveillance-face-recognition
J. you can take any concept to extremes, and many people do: it's why they blow people up along with themselves. Now, if they were brighter, just went out into the park and then proceeded to blow themselves up when alone, that would be a vast improvement in social awarness, don't you think?
As for home-grown hoodies, the problem will solve itself with climate change: it'll just be too damned hot for those people to wear those silly, dangerous things that leave them liable to get run over stepping onto the street. Mind you...
Rob
-
UK slides slowly into an industrial crisis. The industrial output is the lowest in 6 years. The outlook for the other EU countries is also worsening.
The IHS Markit/CIPS UK Manufacturing PMI fell to 48.0 in June 2019 from 49.4 in the previous month and well below market expectations of 49.2. The latest reading pointed to the steepest contraction in the manufacturing sector since February 2013/
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/manufacturing-pmi
-
UK slides slowly into an industrial crisis. The industrial output is the lowest in 6 years. The outlook for the other EU countries is also worsening.
So who's it going to be for PM and does it make any difference? What are the chances the EU will renegotiate?
-
So who's it going to be for PM and does it make any difference? What are the chances the EU will renegotiate?
It may make a difference, but the trouble is that nobody can trust anybody to do as they promise. At this stage, it's all about climbing the Tory totem pole; anything else hardly matters to them. At least they still have the remnants of a pole.
Why should Europe reopen negotiations? The only bits the Brits want to negotiate are the ones impossible to negotiate without tumbling down the structure for what it was erected to accomplish: the point of being within such a union, i.e. good membership commercial deals and painless cooperation within said group. As with any club, you don't join and pay your subscription if outsiders get the same facilities for nothing, do you?
That size matters has never been more obvious, yet there goes Boris, saying it doesn't matter if Scotland and Northern Ireland go walkies. In a world of increasing redefinings of international power, it's the last time to choose to be a minnow.
-
It may make a difference, but the trouble is that nobody can trust anybody to do as they promise. At this stage, it's all about climbing the Tory totem pole; anything else hardly matters to them. At least they still have the remnants of a pole.
Why should Europe reopen negotiations? The only bits the Brits want to negotiate are the ones impossible to negotiate without tumbling down the structure for what it was erected to accomplish: the point of being within such a union, i.e. good membership commercial deals and painless cooperation within said group. As with any club, you don't join and pay your subscription if outsiders get the same facilities for nothing, do you?
That size matters has never been more obvious, yet there goes Boris, saying it doesn't matter if Scotland and Northern Ireland go walkies. In a world of increasing redefinings of international power, it's the last time to choose to be a minnow.
What would happen if there is no Brexit deal with the EU? After all, most countries in the world are not part of the EU. Yet they successfully trade with them. How would Britain be any different?
-
What would happen if there is no Brexit deal with the EU? After all, most countries in the world are not part of the EU. Yet they successfully trade with them. How would Britain be any different?
They might need Trump. Or at least his advice. :P
-
They might need Trump. Or at least his advice. :P
Hmmm. So that's why he favors Brexit. :)
-
The province of Quebec recently passed a law that forbids the wearing of religious symbols by anyone employed by the province. The criteria is quite wide in that it applies to teachers who are actually employed by school boards that are sanctioned by the provincial education department so the legislation does not strictly apply to only civil servant employees, i.e., those that work directly in government administration. I believe, for example, that is also applies to city bus drivers, for example, but I'm not 100% about that. One things it means is that Sikhs cannot work in some occupations, such as the police for example. That last one is odd because Sikhs are allowed in the federal RCMP force. Many have distinguished themselves in the military as well, but in Quebec, they need not apply for some jobs.
They worded it in a very general way but it is obviously directed at the wearing of head gear by muslim women. This is interesting in many ways.
The first and obvious one is the very notion that the government has the right to tell people how to dress. Personally speaking, in this vein I think they should outlaw hoodies on teenagers because it interferes with me picking them out of police line-ups.
The second is the timing. I wonder if they would have introduced this kind of regulation when Roman Catholic nuns still wore their old-style habits, as many of them were employed as teachers in Quebec parochial schools. This method of dress, moderation-plus, I'll call it, was pretty common among Victorian women as well. Presumably Amish women could not get jobs in the Quebec civil service, but they wisely opt out of modern society anyway.
A third way is the argument, made by my Moroccan muslim neighbour and others, is that the wearing of head gear is not a religious requirement or symbol anyway. It is only practitioners in some cultures that cover their heads, many muslim traditions do not require their women to cover their heads. So it's more and Arab or Pakistani thing than a muslim thing. This point of view may be controversial in the muslim community, for all I know.
We were in Montreal visiting friends last week and talked about this. It also applies to the somewhat large Orthodox Jewish community where the men keep there head's covered. I wondered whether it applied to the women some who wear scarves but most wear wigs (only the husband is supposed to see their natural hair).
-
The problem with wearing those head things etc. is touched upon perfectly in your reference to hoodies. I kinda remember some police forces in the UK tryng to get those outfits banned; did they succeed?
there clearly needs to be a ban on wearing baseball caps on backwards. However, maybe looking stupid is enough of a punishment.
-
We were in Montreal visiting friends last week and talked about this. It also applies to the somewhat large Orthodox Jewish community where the men keep there head's covered. I wondered whether it applied to the women some who wear scarves but most wear wigs (only the husband is supposed to see their natural hair).
You'll have to shave off your beard. :)
-
We were in Montreal visiting friends last week and talked about this. It also applies to the somewhat large Orthodox Jewish community where the men keep there head's covered. I wondered whether it applied to the women some who wear scarves but most wear wigs (only the husband is supposed to see their natural hair).
I'll talk to friends and family who still live there, see what they know, which may not be much yet. But I suspect that although the enabling legislation has passed, they probably haven't ironed out how to apply any resulting regulations.
Makes you wonder about things though. What if head scarves become a fashion thing generally? How would they differentiate between a woman wearing a hard scarf for religious reasons and those wearing them for fashion reasons.
Seems like a pandering overreaction. The only real need to act, it seems to me, was with respect to full facial coverings and passport photos or driving license photos, etc. How many people does that actually affect? That is to say, are people's sensibilities really disturbed because their kid's teacher is wearing a necklace with a crucifix on it?
And as Alan pointed out, is there a difference between a regular beard and a religious beard?
But the satirical site https://www.thebeaverton.com (https://www.thebeaverton.com) had this to say https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/06/quebec-law-requires-all-circumcised-government-workers-to-wear-secular-foreskin-covers/ (https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/06/quebec-law-requires-all-circumcised-government-workers-to-wear-secular-foreskin-covers/).
-
I'll talk to friends and family who still live there, see what they know, which may not be much yet. But I suspect that although the enabling legislation has passed, they probably haven't ironed out how to apply any resulting regulations.
Makes you wonder about things though. What if head scarves become a fashion thing generally? How would they differentiate between a woman wearing a hard scarf for religious reasons and those wearing them for fashion reasons.
Seems like a pandering overreaction. The only real need to act, it seems to me, was with respect to full facial coverings and passport photos or driving license photos, etc. How many people does that actually affect? That is to say, are people's sensibilities really disturbed because their kid's teacher is wearing a necklace with a crucifix on it?
And as Alan pointed out, is there a difference between a regular beard and a religious beard?
But the satirical site https://www.thebeaverton.com (https://www.thebeaverton.com) had this to say https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/06/quebec-law-requires-all-circumcised-government-workers-to-wear-secular-foreskin-covers/ (https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/06/quebec-law-requires-all-circumcised-government-workers-to-wear-secular-foreskin-covers/).
We definitely need bathrooms for the covered separate from the uncovered. You wouldn't want anyone to get scared when they're at a urinal.
-
What would happen if there is no Brexit deal with the EU? After all, most countries in the world are not part of the EU. Yet they successfully trade with them. How would Britain be any different?
Back to your drawing board, Alan.
-
Back to your drawing board, Alan.
I don;t understand your answer. Could you clarify?
-
Rob,
Here is a solution for you (just check your Jewish heritage first):
"British Jews trace Iberian heritage to retain EU citizenship
Who might help Remainers keep EU passports? Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition"
https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/07/02/british-jews-trace-iberian-heritage-to-retain-eu-citizenship?cid1=cust/dailypicks/n/bl/n/2019072n/owned/n/n/dailypicks/n/n/NA/265671/n
A year before the Brexit referendum of 2016, Portugal and Spain passed laws which offered Sephardic Jews—those whose families once lived on the Iberian peninsula—a path to citizenship. Each country intended the gesture to act as recompense for the forcible exile of Jews in the 1490s, in one of the first acts of the Spanish Inquisition. But the two countries have unwittingly offered a lifeline for Remainers anxious to retain EU citizenship after Britain leaves the bloc
-
Rob,
Here is a solution for you (just check your Jewish heritage first):
"British Jews trace Iberian heritage to retain EU citizenship
Who might help Remainers keep EU passports? Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition"
https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/07/02/british-jews-trace-iberian-heritage-to-retain-eu-citizenship?cid1=cust/dailypicks/n/bl/n/2019072n/owned/n/n/dailypicks/n/n/NA/265671/n
Hmmm... I don't think it would wash. I have sometimes wondered if I have Jewish connections somewhere, because the few comedians I enjoy are almost invariably Jewish, as with the photographers. My mother did spend part of her early life living in northern Spain, but as she was popped into a convent (which she hated; she once told me that there is no cruely as the cruelty women can inflict upon girls) for her education, it's unlikely I'll discover safety there! Anyway, it would all take so much time... think of the paperwork it could mean - especially in Spain!
-
If you are of German Jewish ancestry and can show that the family was forced to leave Germany after 1933 when Hitler came to power, the family is eligible for a German EU passport. We have good friends who met this qualification and their daughter is now working in London without problem this way. I don't know what the impact of Brexit will be and she should be OK as her husband is English.
-
If you are of German Jewish ancestry and can show that the family was forced to leave Germany after 1933 when Hitler came to power, the family is eligible for a German EU passport. We have good friends who met this qualification and their daughter is now working in London without problem this way. I don't know what the impact of Brexit will be and she should be OK as her husband is English.
Hopefully she will be OK, but her husband's nationality does not necessarily help :-(
-
Hopefully she will be OK, but her husband's nationality does not necessarily help :-(
Isn't that the entire point of bought marriages? A stranger from Pakistan (pick a preferred country) "marries" a Brit and thus attains British citizenship? It's a big business.
A proper marriage must be at least equally valid and bear similar political fruits.
Maybe the other Jeremy can fill us in on this matter? Note: this is not a consultation! ;-)
-
Isn't that the entire point of bought marriages? A stranger from Pakistan (pick a preferred country) "marries" a Brit and thus attains British citizenship? It's a big business.
A proper marriage must be at least equally valid and bear similar political fruits.
Maybe the other Jeremy can fill us in on this matter? Note: this is not a consultation! ;-)
I don't think it works like that - you don't get citizenship based on marriage.
Correction - you can, eventually, but you have to meet a bunch of conditions first.
-
I don't think it works like that - you don't get citizenship based on marriage.
Are you saying you are for family separation at the border!? ;) :P
-
If you are of German Jewish ancestry and can show that the family was forced to leave Germany after 1933 when Hitler came to power, the family is eligible for a German EU passport. We have good friends who met this qualification and their daughter is now working in London without problem this way. I don't know what the impact of Brexit will be and she should be OK as her husband is English.
The eligibility is unaffected by Brexit, but since the Brexit vote there have been reports of some Jewish people getting German passports so they can continue to work and live in Europe as they wish. Many people with Irish roots have done this.
-
How will the new selected leaders of the EU affect Brexit and other things in Europe? Will relations with America be different? Will the EU shift policies? Why does it matter that German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen is a self-proclaimed Federalist?
Apparently, Merkel got who she wanted for Germany. Is this just more of the same?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jC1I0kUJm0
-
How will the new selected leaders of the EU affect Brexit and other things in Europe? Will relations with America be different? Will the EU shift policies? Why does it matter that German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen is a self-proclaimed Federalist?
Apparently, Merkel got who she wanted for Germany. Is this just more of the same?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jC1I0kUJm0
Actually, what Merkel originally wanted, was Ursula von der Leyen's EU new position. Merkel was considered pretty much a shoe-in for that job and endorsed also by Jean-Claude Juncker, the previous Commission president, but in the last few weeks the situation has changed and von der Leyen was nominated instead. As to the relations with America, we know that Trump likes pretty women, so there is a good chance that he will start on the right foot with Ursula.
-
How will the new selected leaders of the EU affect Brexit and other things in Europe? Will relations with America be different? Will the EU shift policies? Why does it matter that German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen is a self-proclaimed Federalist?
Apparently, Merkel got who she wanted for Germany. Is this just more of the same?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jC1I0kUJm0
Unless you didn't notice, it happened some time ago when your new Pressy took over your country land of abode.
Whether or not changes will eventually filter the waters enough to restore faith and confidence in relationships, whether normal or special - whatever that may be - remains to be seen.
-
Why does it matter that German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen is a self-proclaimed Federalist? What does that mean and how does that effect what she will do in her new position?
-
Greeks have quickly come to their senses, after briefly toying with socialism:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-48902766
-
Greeks have quickly come to their senses, after briefly toying with socialism:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-48902766
The new guy Kyriakos Mitsotakis won with 39.8% of the popular vote. Trump won with 46% of the vote. Yeah, I know. Hillary got 48%. But more people wanted Trump than wanted Mitsotakis. Maybe we should send Trump to run Greece. He could build some golf courses there and hotels.
Donald The Greek.
-
The new guy Kyriakos Mitsotakis won with 39.8% of the popular vote. Trump won with 46% of the vote. Yeah, I know. Hillary got 48%. But more people wanted Trump than wanted Mitsotakis. Maybe we should send Trump to run Greece. He could build some golf courses there and hotels.
Donald The Greek.
First good idea. He could then convert their present fiscal woes into "great" fiscal woes"; and go bust just in time to extricate himself. Win win.
Rob
-
Greeks have quickly come to their senses, after briefly toying with socialism:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-48902766
And you DO realise why Tsipras was elected in the first place, don't you ?
-
Do you understand that Greece does not have a 2 party system, and that 20 parties were running?
The final result for the "New Democracy" party is that they get 52.67% of all parliament seats (includes the 50 bonus seats for the largest party), after elimination of those parties that didn't meet the 3% of votes threshold.
Cheers,
Bart
Regardless of the reason, less people voted for the Greek president than voted for the American president, percentage wise. It's just very interesting to me after listening to so many Europeans "knock" Trump for getting so few votes.
It's also interesting that like the American system, where the federal system distorts the final electoral vote and senate makeup, the Greek system of 50 bonus votes distorts the makeup in the Greek parliament. Neither system's end results match the popular vote. Do they still have a Senate? We stole ours from them.
-
And what's worse, now the same dynasty that helped cause the Greek economic crisis in the first place, is back in power.
One can only hope the Greek people will reap some benefits from the unpopular repairs by the previous government.
Cheers,
Bart
Get serious. :) The Greeks will never give up their coffee breaks, early retirements, and Mediterranean sun and start paying their taxes. Germans will have to loan them money again.
-
Get serious. :) The Greeks will never give up their coffee breaks, early retirements, and Mediterranean sun and start paying their taxes. Germans will have to loan them money again.
Spoken like a true Trump-ian. At least they're not all rapists and drug dealers, eh?
-
Greek president
Prime Minister, actually. The President is someone else.
-
And you DO realise why Tsipras was elected in the first place, don't you ?
Every nation has a momentary lapse of reason from time to time. Venezuela is another example. Voting for socialism!? Good grief!
-
Prime Minister, actually. The President is someone else.
Yes, you're correct.
-
Every nation has a momentary lapse of reason from time to time. Venezuela is another example. Voting for socialism!? Good grief!
One wonders what might happen in America if democrats become president and take over the senate in 2020. Our press has always favored redistribution. Just look at the way they publicize AOC, a first-term congresswomen. I get this feeling about her that her "star" power will continue. She's like a Lenin before the start of the Russian Revolution. She's charismatic, tough, smart, and would tear your heart out to advance her plans. I think she will become a force to deal with in the future if Americans forget their past.
-
... She's like a Lenin before the start of the Russian Revolution. She's charismatic, tough, smart...
Omg, Alan, I always supported you but this... this... this is too much, even for me! You are not my friend anymore. She is as "smart" as Yo Momma jokes are. That's her level of discourse.
P.S. As for Lenin, you are right. And it will end the same. In tragedy.
-
Omg, Alan, I always supported you but this... this... this is too much, even for me! You are not my friend anymore. She is as "smart" as Yo Momma jokes are. That's her level of discourse.
P.S. As for Lenin, you are right. And it will end the same. In tragedy.
Tragedy? That's going a bit far, maybe. Things will turn out fine, you'll see. It's not the end of the world yet.
-
Tragedy? That's going a bit far, maybe. Things will turn out fine, you'll see. It's not the end of the world yet.
The "yet" part... it took 70 years to recover from Lenin.
-
Omg, Alan, I always supported you but this... this... this is too much, even for me! You are not my friend anymore. She is as "smart" as Yo Momma jokes are. That's her level of discourse.
P.S. As for Lenin, you are right. And it will end the same. In tragedy.
Street smart. Like Trump. She's 28 and beat a ten term incumbent.
-
Alan, don't be so cruel to Slobodan. He's already having nightmares about her.
Yet, she's only one of an incoming lot of millennials who fear that they will reap the sour grapes of what the current dinosaurs (on both sides of the aisle) fail to address. They are going to shake up the status quo. It's their future, so who could blame them.
Cheers,
Bart
Actually Trump and Sanders, two old white guys,0 were the leading wave of anti establishment.
-
Fair enough, but they won't have to suffer the full consequences like the millennials do.
Cheers,
Bart
The first thing that Millennials will do when they take over is cut off Social Security and pension and retirement plans for us old white guys like you and me.
-
time to move to the Netherlands then. ;)
-
If one can handle the culture shock, why not?
Ranking fifth in the 2019 World Happiness Report:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
Of course, one might not qualify to stay unless one is a political refugee ...
Cheers,
Bart
If you got a hot wife and a lot of money, you could be happy anywheres.
Even in New Jersey. :)
-
If you got a hot wife and a lot of money, you could be happy anywheres. Even in New Jersey. :)
That comment is about what I've come to expect.
-
If one can handle the culture shock, why not?
Cheers,
Bart
I've been fortunate enough to spend a good deal of time in Amsterdam, and honestly didn't really find there to be a huge culture shock. Great museums, good food, strong local transportation options and easy access to the rest of Europe, socially tolerant culture, and everyone speaks decent English for those of us that don't speak Dutch.
What's not to love?
-
If one can handle the culture shock, why not?
Ranking fifth in the 2019 World Happiness Report:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
Of course, one might not qualify to stay unless one is a political refugee ...
Cheers,
Bart
As long as I can get a season ticket for Ajax matches, I'm happy to be a political refugee.
-
I've been fortunate enough to spend a good deal of time in Amsterdam, and honestly didn't really find there to be a huge culture shock. Great museums, good food, strong local transportation options and easy access to the rest of Europe, socially tolerant culture, and everyone speaks decent English for those of us that don't speak Dutch.
What's not to love?
It's not your country. They're not your people. In the end, they're going to throw you out. You're not really wanted.
-
It's not your country. They're not your people. In the end, they're going to throw you out. You're not really wanted.
You're joking, right?
-
You're joking, right?
No. It may be a great place to visit, but not a great place to live. Why would anyone make a commitment to another country knowing that they'll have to leave? The whole "study" is silly. Most people want to stay in their own country where they have a common heritage, speak the language, are culturally affiliated.
-
... Most people want to stay in their own country where they have a common heritage, speak the language, are culturally affiliated.
If only Latinos would hear you. Or, in case of Europe, Middle Easterns and North Africans ;)
-
If only Latinos would hear you. Or, in case of Europe, Middle Easterns and North Africans ;)
I welcome all immigrants, including Latinos, who come to America legally who wish to become part of the American family. That includes economic and political refugees. I think they should learn English and become citizens. I think immigrants are more welcome here because we are an immigrant nation. Encouraging use of other languages in the public square isolates those immigrants. They never get connected and frankly don;t do was well as those who do. Second generation immigrants tend to become enculturated even if their parents do not.
-
I welcome all immigrants, including Latinos, who come to America legally who wish to become part of the American family. That includes economic and political refugees. I think they should learn English and become citizens. I think immigrants are more welcome here because we are an immigrant nation. Encouraging use of other languages in the public square isolates those immigrants. They never get connected and frankly don;t do was well as those who do. Second generation immigrants tend to become enculturated even if their parents do not.
You sound like a native indian... some 200 years ago
-
You sound like a native indian... some 200 years ago
I am a native. I was born here.
-
It's not your country. They're not your people. In the end, they're going to throw you out. You're not really wanted.
I don't even know how to respond to this.
-
It describes Thailand to a T i think.
-
If you got a hot wife and a lot of money, you could be happy anywheres.
Even in New Jersey. :)
Well, as reality and fiction have fused together, it wasn't that happy a place for the Soprano family... imagine sisters, mothers and uncles like that, not to mention nephews and assorted, interchangeable wives and predatory preachers.
But yeah, NJ aside, the two factors of wealth and hot wife go far - as long as hot wife is hot for you, and you alone. I'd pick Rome, I think.
Rob
-
I don't even know how to respond to this.
They're not going to let you become a citizen. You're a second class citizen in fact, not really wanted by the country. You're a visitor. Why commit to such a relationship? It's like being a boyfriend to a married woman. Well, maybe it's not the same.
-
I've been fortunate enough to spend a good deal of time in Amsterdam, and honestly didn't really find there to be a huge culture shock. Great museums, good food, strong local transportation options and easy access to the rest of Europe, socially tolerant culture, and everyone speaks decent English for those of us that don't speak Dutch.
What's not to love?
Maybe this:
https://www.facebook.com/Lovenetherlands099/videos/853575445000411?s=581126504&v=e&sfns=mo
-
Looks like Manchester.
Jeremy
-
Not much happening during the year...
-
Not much happening during the year...
Just like here, then.
;-(
-
Yet another reason to leave:
IS wife and her children must be repatriated, rules German court https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48958644
-
It's been a funny two days: I checked with Sky News last night and today, and absolutely nothing has happened in the world since yesterday when the English cricketers won a match somewhere.
Perhaps Trump really does have magic, and the world has become a safer place after all.
:-)
-
Why? Do you hate children as well?
Men and women suspected of joining IS abroad are subjected to criminal investigation. In my country that almost always leads to imprisonment, and possibly mandatory reeducation of the children depending on their age.
Cheers,
Bart
We finally agree on something. Regardless of what a citizen does, they should be allowed back into their country because it's their country. Of course, they must face the consequences of any crime they may had done while abroad. No person should be a "man without a country".
-
We finally agree on something. Regardless of what a citizen does, they should be allowed back into their country because it's their country. Of course, they must face the consequences of any crime they may had done while abroad. No person should be a "man without a country".
On the contrary: being men without country can have the direct benefit of banding them all together in one "safe" place where folks can keep a surreptitious eye on them; somewhere in the Middle East would be perfect. It's the cell culture that poses domestic dangers: they could be the smiling citizens in the shop at the end of your road, the nice family that's always open into the late hours just in case you run out of whatever. Whodda thunk, the neighbours will say when the fire brigade comes round. In Spanish, they call them the bomberos (the firemen) which is possibly a reference back to earlier centuries of occupation...
I am sure that the normal people of the same ethnicity hate the extremists every bit as much as anyone else does: they kill more of them than they do of us.
-
Perhaps words are not enough, and perhaps too late:
-
On the contrary: being men without country can have the direct benefit of banding them all together in one "safe" place where folks can keep a surreptitious eye on them; somewhere in the Middle East would be perfect. It's the cell culture that poses domestic dangers: they could be the smiling citizens in the shop at the end of your road, the nice family that's always open into the late hours just in case you run out of whatever. Whodda thunk, the neighbours will say when the fire brigade comes round. In Spanish, they call them the bomberos (the firemen) which is possibly a reference back to earlier centuries of occupation...
I am sure that the normal people of the same ethnicity hate the extremists every bit as much as anyone else does: they kill more of them than they do of us.
I'm not sure of this. But I don't think in America you can revoke someone's citizenship. If they commited treason, then they can be tried for it as a crime. They lose their right to vote. Although some liberal Democrat states looking for more votes want to grant them back that right. Not sure what happens after they get out of prison.
-
I don't think in America you can revoke someone's citizenship.
As a general rule, no. However, the citizenship of a naturalized citizen can be revoked under certain circumstances (https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2). The government has used this authority to revoke the citizenshp of immigrants who participated in Nazi war crimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/22/us/demjanjuk-loses-citizenship-again-judge-cites-lies.html), for example.
-
As a general rule, no. However, the citizenship of a naturalized citizen can be revoked under certain circumstances (https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2). The government has used this authority to revoke the citizenshp of immigrants who participated in Nazi war crimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/22/us/demjanjuk-loses-citizenship-again-judge-cites-lies.html), for example.
Ok so a native born American cannot lose his citizenship?
-
Ok so a native born American cannot lose his citizenship?
As noted in my earlier post, the government can revoke the U.S. citizenship of a naturalized citizen if, for example, it was fraudulently obtained. Any citizen, native-born or naturalized, can lose his citizenship "by voluntarily performing" certain specified acts "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." These include being naturalized by, making a formal declaration of allegiance to, or serving in the armed forces of another country; renouncing U.S. citizenship; and participating in military action against the United States. Note that an action that can result in loss of citizenship must be undertaken voluntarily and not under duress. [8 USC §1481. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481)]
-
As noted in my earlier post, the government can revoke the U.S. citizenship of a naturalized citizen if, for example, it was fraudulently obtained. Any citizen, native-born or naturalized, can lose his citizenship "by voluntarily performing" certain specified acts "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." These include being naturalized by, making a formal declaration of allegiance to, or serving in the armed forces of another country; renouncing U.S. citizenship; and participating in military action against the United States. Note that an action that can result in loss of citizenship must be undertaken voluntarily and not under duress. [8 USC §1481. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481)]
That's interesting. So a native born citizen can lose his citizenship. What happens then when you become man without a country?
-
That's interesting. So a native born citizen can lose his citizenship. What happens then when you become man without a country?
The consequences would be determined by the laws of the country where the stateless person resides.*
Without citizenship, stateless people have no legal protection and no right to vote, and they often lack access to education, employment, health care, registration of birth, marriage or death, and property rights. Stateless people may also encounter travel restrictions, social exclusion, and heightened vulnerability to sexual and physical violence, exploitation, trafficking in persons, forcible displacement, and other abuses.
— U.S. Department of State (https://www.state.gov/other-policy-issues/statelessness/)
———
*Under some circumstances, they might have to "go back [to] the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." For example, Michigan. Or even the Bronx.
-
The consequences would be determined by the laws of the country where the stateless person resides.*
———
*Under some circumstances, they might have to "go back [to] the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." For example, Michigan. Or even the Bronx.
The Bronx? That's where I'm from. I'll have to move in with AOC.
-
"That's interesting. So a native born citizen can lose his citizenship. What happens then when you become man without a country?"
You join the ranks of Superman, Batman etc. and become The Man who lives in an Airport.
You get instant media coverage and a book deal.
Rob
P.S.
Why the hell are we discussing American political comedy on a Brexit thread?
-
P.S.
Why the hell are we discussing American political comedy on a Brexit thread?
Because as long as Britain remains in the European Union, any topic is free to settle in any thread.
-
Because as long as Britain remains in the European Union, any topic is free to settle in any thread.
Indeed, as long as it's a European topic and not an American identity/mid-life/psychological diagnosis problem.
;-)
-
Can some Brit explain what this means? Can a PM pass laws without parliament? Or is this something like a presidential order in America?
"'No-deal' Brexit dealt blow by UK parliament"
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/brexit-dealt-blow-uk-parliament-190718134130984.html (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/brexit-dealt-blow-uk-parliament-190718134130984.html)
-
Can some Brit explain what this means? Can a PM pass laws without parliament? Or is this something like a presidential order in America?
"'No-deal' Brexit dealt blow by UK parliament"
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/brexit-dealt-blow-uk-parliament-190718134130984.html (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/brexit-dealt-blow-uk-parliament-190718134130984.html)
Not a matter of passing laws by him/herself, but of playing games with the rules in order to allow Brexit to happen by default because Parliament, not being in session, wasn't able to gather and put a stop to it.
In today's news, the inner circle of Tory leadership is thinking of altering the party's rules in order to protect the new PM from challenges from within the party during the first year. In other words, if the new guy does something terrible and the majority of his party may want to oust him, it will have to wait a year to challenge him in an attempt do that, and during that period, who knows what devastation may get pushed through. The way I see it, the Tory party has sold its soul to a new radicalism that is unrecognizable.
The loony right rules and it seems those hoping for a sense of moderation have nowhere to look. The opposition is equally split and offering the alternative of extreme left-thinking for as long as Corbyn exists as a power within it.
-
I'm at Monmouth Park Raceway in New Jersey now. In Rob's honor, I bet $5 to Win on a horse called Brexit Revenge. Race goes off in about 30 minutes. Will advise.
-
It lost. Didn't even come in the money.
-
...
The loony right rules and it seems those hoping for a sense of moderation have nowhere to look. The opposition is equally split and offering the alternative of extreme left-thinking for as long as Corbyn exists as a power within it.
It is a time of weak British politicians that talk about themselves, party politics and they know how to play the media and the people. But i do not see many that go for the content and that have some view of what the future should bring to the country. At a moment of a possible Brexit such politicians are needed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49021081
-
It is a time of weak British politicians that talk about themselves, party politics and they know how to play the media and the people. But i do not see many that go for the content and that have some view of what the future should bring to the country. At a moment of a possible Brexit such politicians are needed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49021081
Indeed they do know how to play to their terraces. Unfortunately, it's the only damned thing they do know.
I have lost count of the number of different, independent bodies that have made studies and reports outlining the dire consequences of pulling out without a deal. All these reports get is "they would say that, wouldn't they? as a stock response which, of course, is no response at all. But the fans applaud, as ever...
-
The loony right rules and it seems those hoping for a sense of moderation have nowhere to look. The opposition is equally split and offering the alternative of extreme left-thinking for as long as Corbyn exists as a power within it.
This is why the LibDems are hugely gaining ground as they are the closest thing to a credible anit-brexit party. Some polls have even put them as the largest party after a new election, although that seems somewhat optimistic, but not actually impossible right now.
-
Fresh From The Press: Boris Johnson claims moon landing proves he can deliver Brexit.
Writing in what is expected to be his last column in the Daily Telegraph before he enters No10, Mr Johnson said the 50th anniversary of the moon landing, which fell on Sunday, showed why he will be able to deliver Brexit by the 31 October deadline.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-deadline-irish-border-moon-landing-tory-leadership-hunt-a9015011.html
-
Fresh From The Press: Boris Johnson claims moon landing proves he can deliver Brexit.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-deadline-irish-border-moon-landing-tory-leadership-hunt-a9015011.html
The Independent is er, unlikely ever to take a favourable view of anything Johnson either says or does. Think CNN and Trump.
Jeremy
-
The Independent is er, unlikely ever to take a favourable view of anything Johnson either says or does. Think CNN and Trump.
Jeremy
Then they have been perfectly objective so far; when Boris does something positive, I'm sure they will report it. But I guess they know about leopards and spots.
I really shudder thinking that an overgrown schoolboy may well head up our nation, represent us in the eyes of the world. And you know what? I don't really blame him, I blame the madness that has filled the heads of this land and allowed these things to come to pass. If he does get the job, it'll be interesting - for anyone not affected - to look at the entourage that will surround the guy, that will guide him and flatter and coax. Wait - it's Britain of which we speak, easy to forget!
;-)
-
Resignations because of the no-deal Brexit continue:
-
This is a photo site, so...
“27 Bizarre Pictures Of Britain's Next Prime Minister“
https://apple.news/AHtim1dGGQe-j0pkRTOSAzw
-
This is a photo site, so...
“27 Bizarre Pictures Of Britain's Next Prime Minister“
https://apple.news/AHtim1dGGQe-j0pkRTOSAzw
They only came up with twenty seven???
-
Looks like Boris and Donald use the same hair coloring. They'll be able to compare notes and use each others hairdressers.
-
Looks like Boris and Donald use the same hair coloring. They'll be able to compare notes and use each others hairdressers.
Nah, standard wigs.
-
The Remainers could make a lot of money if their wet dream comes (pardon the pun) true ;)
-
Boris looks, well, weird. Would someone buy him a comb. He doesn;t present much confidence as a leader. Sorry to say that. I realize he's your PM.
-
Boris looks, well, weird.
On the court or off the court?
-
On the court or off the court?
Don't know what you mean. Explain?
-
Don't know what you mean. Explain?
I thought you were referring to the picture of Boris holding the racquet (posted above by Slobodan)
-
I thought you were referring to the picture (posted above by Slobodan)
No. Actually it was some news videos I saw on TV. But the tennis picture doesn;t help him either. Of course Trump's similar hairdo isn't flattering either. Can you imagine a picture of the two of them playing tennis on the same team? Good luck with Brexit.
-
Well, he's in. Let's see now if doing the same thing again, when you have no option, has a different result.
Europe has made it perfectly clear why there is no possibility of a new, different deal because of its very structure and regulations.
I reckon he's created a couple of very bitter people: high-ranking supporters who are suddenly jobless for no fathomable cause, one a lady. I am very interested in seeing whether or not there is reason in the old one about hell, fury and a woman scorned.
Ultima Hora, a local rag, had a great pair of pix, the original red Brexit bus with the fibs about the 350 million a week to the health service if we leave the EU - denied by them as "error" the very day they knew they'd won, and another, current red bus bearing a huge line saying Boris Lies!
In a little article elsewhere, they congratulate themselves (the Spanish) for having a hopeless government that is not, however, as hopeless as the dysfunctional ones of the US and the UK.
How the rest of the world sees us... just as well it doesn't read these columns.
:-)
-
In a little article elsewhere, they congratulate themselves (the Spanish) for having a hopeless government that is not, however, as hopeless as the dysfunctional ones of the US and the UK.
It's not just the United States and the United Kingdom. The populist wave of voter anger that is sweeping through many democratic countries has installed other improbable leaders, as well.
The political volatility produced by the transition to a "post-industrial" economy is rather like the weather volatility produced by the transition to a warmer climate. The global trend may be predictable, but the localized effects are sometimes quite bizarre.
-
It's not just the United States and the United Kingdom. The populist wave of voter anger that is sweeping through many democratic countries has installed other improbable leaders, as well.
The political volatility produced by the transition to a "post-industrial" economy is rather like the weather volatility produced by the transition to a warmer climate. The global trend may be predictable, but the localized effects are sometimes quite bizarre.
A post-industrial economy is itself an odd thought: we seem to need to make more and more useless "stuff" all the time. Got it! Stuff gets made elsewhere where it doesn't count!
The overhead cables that stretched yesterday, creating havoc with Britain's rail system, how does that get solved? Elastic cables? :-) A return to coal-powered trains?
I was wondering why heatwaves get credited with raised levels of crime: you'd think people would be too knackered to feel like enjoying a little crime.
:-)
-
It's not just the United States and the United Kingdom. The populist wave of voter anger that is sweeping through many democratic countries has installed other improbable leaders, as well.
The political volatility produced by the transition to a "post-industrial" economy is rather like the weather volatility produced by the transition to a warmer climate. The global trend may be predictable, but the localized effects are sometimes quite bizarre.
think people are still angry about the 2008 recession that left a lot of hurt people and families. People feel they've been left behind, ignored. So when someone comes across as a populist who appears to have your concern, it attracts support.
In any case, the EU turned down more negotiations it seems to re-do Brexit terms. Good luck. The Brits are on their own. When will the exit begin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vydV-3KQJQ
-
think people are still angry about the 2008 recession that left a lot of hurt people and families. People feel they've been left behind, ignored. So when someone comes across as a populist who appears to have your concern, it attracts support.
In any case, the EU turned down more negotiations it seems to re-do Brexit terms. Good luck. The Brits are on their own. When will the exit begin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vydV-3KQJQ
I think it started back in the 1980’s when manufacturing really started to move supply chains further overseas and out of the US.
-
I think it started back in the 1980’s when manufacturing really started to move supply chains further overseas and out of the US.
I agree. It just got worse after 2008 recession when so many saw their life savings lost and jobs disappear.
What's interesting is that decades ago I wondered why Americans were building certain products at 5x or more times the cost in labor than for the same products overseas. Why are we getting paid so much for the same labor? Of course, that didn't last. What happened is that the American jobs eventually disappeared for those products because of the higher labor cost. As more and more foreigners develop the ability to build products at less labor cost, we'll lose more and more jobs. So our wealth will decrease as theirs increases. I think some speculate that the US dollar being the international currency it is allows us to control this situation somewhat. I don;t really know. But the next 2008 is going to be a killer. Wealth will be wiped out as the government prints money to keep the economy going. It's going to be a bloodbath.
-
Looks like Boris and Donald use the same hair coloring. They'll be able to compare notes and use each others hairdressers.
They were separated at birth
https://www.frontpagelive.com/2019/07/23/why-the-us-still-trumps-the-uk-despite-getting-boris-the-donalds-twin-separated-at-birth-as-prime-minister/#0
-
I already love him:
-
I agree. It just got worse after 2008 recession when so many saw their life savings lost and jobs disappear.
What's interesting is that decades ago I wondered why Americans were building certain products at 5x or more times the cost in labor than for the same products overseas. Why are we getting paid so much for the same labor? Of course, that didn't last. What happened is that the American jobs eventually disappeared for those products because of the higher labor cost. As more and more foreigners develop the ability to build products at less labor cost, we'll lose more and more jobs. So our wealth will decrease as theirs increases. I think some speculate that the US dollar being the international currency it is allows us to control this situation somewhat. I don;t really know. But the next 2008 is going to be a killer. Wealth will be wiped out as the government prints money to keep the economy going. It's going to be a bloodbath.
That is a perfect description of the British world as I saw it at the time of the Thatcher years and slightly before.
In our case, it was fuelled by Labour governments and union power working in combination/conflict with manufacturing that left much to be desired. In Scotland, we had the Rootes car plant at Linwood, a governmental adventure in promoting English-based business to expand outwith the south of England and calm the savage breasts up in Lapland Scotland. In the event, the engines had to be sent up from Coventry, the bodies were to be seen sitting out in fields (not a dry country, this) and it was also supposed to provide a market for the steel production plant next door. The costs added to the manufacturing of the small car made there - the Hillman Imp - with all that coming and going of parts, when the car market was always going to be huge in England and not up in Scotland, never made financial sense. Body shells for the Volvo P1800 (the Saint car) were to be seen on the backs of trucks - I wonder how they were to fare in the coming years? The Imp rusted as badly as the Fiats and Lancias. I know Rootes has gone - completely - as, to the best of my understanding, has the steel plant.
Like with Trump and Mexico and US cars made there, by playing the patriot card you cure one thing and create a worse one. So manufacturing reverts to the US and Ford, for example, says it will phase out saloons by the end of the year, leaving just the Mustang and trucks.
Ford has also announced a new round of job cuts, as has Nissan:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/20/ford-motor-company-cut-7000-jobs-500-uk
Currently, billions are about to be wasted in England by the construction of rail and road links making the distance between the south and the north, the east and the west feel a little less. The sad reality is that however quickly they manage to make distance and time fly, the costs of doing that remain, both in terms of creating the infrastructure and then using it. Pockets of industry originally developed organically, not because governments said it had to be so.
Rob
-
That is a perfect description of the British world as I saw it at the time of the Thatcher years and slightly before.
In our case, it was fuelled by Labour governments and union power working in combination/conflict with manufacturing that left much to be desired. In Scotland, we had the Rootes car plant at Linwood, a governmental adventure in promoting English-based business to expand outwith the south of England and calm the savage breasts up in Lapland Scotland. In the event, the engines had to be sent up from Coventry, the bodies were to be seen sitting out in fields (not a dry country, this) and it was also supposed to provide a market for the steel production plant next door. The costs added to the manufacturing of the small car made there - the Hillman Imp - with all that coming and going of parts, when the car market was always going to be huge in England and not up in Scotland, never made financial sense. Body shells for the Volvo P1800 (the Saint car) were to be seen on the backs of trucks - I wonder how they were to fare in the coming years? The Imp rusted as badly as the Fiats and Lancias. I know Rootes has gone - completely - as, to the best of my understanding, has the steel plant.
Like with Trump and Mexico and US cars made there, by playing the patriot card you cure one thing and create a worse one. So manufacturing reverts to the US and Ford, for example, says it will phase out saloons by the end of the year, leaving just the Mustang and trucks.
Ford has also announced a new round of job cuts, as has Nissan:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/20/ford-motor-company-cut-7000-jobs-500-uk
Currently, billions are about to be wasted in England by the construction of rail and road links making the distance between the south and the north, the east and the west feel a little less. The sad reality is that however quickly they manage to make distance and time fly, the costs of doing that remain, both in terms of creating the infrastructure and then using it. Pockets of industry originally developed organically, not because governments said it had to be so.
Rob
Rob,
The (conventional) car industry is in trouble world-wide. The move is towards electrification.
This is Britain's opportunity to subsidise and encourage the new industries. Ford is lagging behind with electrification.
Whilst I'm very skeptical about the bad effects of CO2 emissions on climate, I don't like pollution, and I don't like noisy beasts continually passing by whenever I'm near a road.
From the Guardian article you linked:
"According to Prof Karel Williams of the Manchester Business School: “The car as we know it may be on the edge of becoming history, the way that [photographic company] Kodak became history.”
"The real big thing is that the car, as Ford and General Motors invented it, is going to be reinvented with electrification and autonomy.”
“China will become the centre for global electric vehicle production, said Bailey. Unless the industry transforms, large chunks of it could get wiped out."
-
That is a perfect description of the British world as I saw it at the time of the Thatcher years and slightly before.
In our case, it was fuelled by Labour governments and union power working in combination/conflict with manufacturing that left much to be desired. In Scotland, we had the Rootes car plant at Linwood, a governmental adventure in promoting English-based business to expand outwith the south of England and calm the savage breasts up in Lapland Scotland. In the event, the engines had to be sent up from Coventry, the bodies were to be seen sitting out in fields (not a dry country, this) and it was also supposed to provide a market for the steel production plant next door. The costs added to the manufacturing of the small car made there - the Hillman Imp - with all that coming and going of parts, when the car market was always going to be huge in England and not up in Scotland, never made financial sense. Body shells for the Volvo P1800 (the Saint car) were to be seen on the backs of trucks - I wonder how they were to fare in the coming years? The Imp rusted as badly as the Fiats and Lancias. I know Rootes has gone - completely - as, to the best of my understanding, has the steel plant.
Like with Trump and Mexico and US cars made there, by playing the patriot card you cure one thing and create a worse one. So manufacturing reverts to the US and Ford, for example, says it will phase out saloons by the end of the year, leaving just the Mustang and trucks.
Ford has also announced a new round of job cuts, as has Nissan:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/20/ford-motor-company-cut-7000-jobs-500-uk (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/20/ford-motor-company-cut-7000-jobs-500-uk)
Currently, billions are about to be wasted in England by the construction of rail and road links making the distance between the south and the north, the east and the west feel a little less. The sad reality is that however quickly they manage to make distance and time fly, the costs of doing that remain, both in terms of creating the infrastructure and then using it. Pockets of industry originally developed organically, not because governments said it had to be so.
Rob
Government moving around the wealth of others to favor certain industries is usually a bad idea. The organic brilliance of the 'invisible hand" of the free market is lost. We have it here with rebates on Tesla cars and solar power for homes. People only see all the jobs the government created or saved with that money. What they don't see is the jobs that were never created because that money went elsewhere rather than where the free market would have put it if left alone. Then, when the supported businesses fail, all that money turn out wasted rather than have been the seed money for new and dynamic industries.
And then there's plain old politics. In 2009, Obama and the US government bailed out the auto workers union in Detroit as a payback for their support of the president when he got elected the year before.
The government always screws things up. I wonder how China is going to avoid the same problem? They're heavily involved in making business decisions that should be left in private hands. Communists are not immuned to the laws of economics.
-
Government moving around the wealth of others to favor certain industries is usually a bad idea. The organic brilliance of the 'invisible hand" of the free market is lost. We have it here with rebates on Tesla cars and solar power for homes. People only see all the jobs the government created or saved with that money. What they don't see is the jobs that were never created because that money went elsewhere rather than where the free market would have put it if left alone. Then, when the supported businesses fail, all that money turn out wasted rather than have been the seed money for new and dynamic industries.
And then there's plain old politics. In 2009, Obama and the US government bailed out the auto workers union in Detroit as a payback for their support of the president when he got elected the year before.
The government always screws things up. I wonder how China is going to avoid the same problem? They're heavily involved in making business decisions that should be left in private hands. Communists are not immuned to the laws of economics.
Ehm, the Chinese are generally pretty good at business. They are getting closer to taking over or controlling critical sections of the supply chain the West depends on.
-
Ehm, the Chinese are generally pretty good at business...
Only because they abandoned their communist central planning in favor of brute capitalism.
-
And over long historic time.
-
It could be their labor and potential markets are so huge, it covers up any government mistakes that are going on. There are another billion Chinese who want to enter middle class like the 400 million that already made it. Also the Chinese are huge savers which is great for capital investment. Again saving covers up a lot of mistakes made privately and governmentally.
-
It could be their labor and potential markets are so huge, it covers up any government mistakes that are going on. There are another billion Chinese who want to enter middle class like the 400 million that already made it. Also the Chinese are huge savers which is great for capital investment. Again saving covers up a lot of mistakes made privately and governmentally.
Beware thinking too hard about that other "billion" you say wants to join the 400 million.
As with our own variations on a theme, capitalism sees more failures than successes with new starts. It's just another step on the belief path that tells everybody that all are equal, all gifted, and that only opportunity denied some by wicked forces is what holds them back. Why would anyone imagine the Chinese are any different - they are just people like the rest of us.
Do you think that vast amounts of money best spent otherwise do not also go up in smoke when a private business goes tits up? And with them, hopes, dreams and life savings, sometimes? Of all people, you know that! Nothing is safe; everything that depends on anything beyond ourselves is wide open to disaster at some stage or another. Government holds no monopoly on mistakes.
-
Rob, glad to see you are back to your 20s ;)
-
Beware thinking too hard about that other "billion" you say wants to join the 400 million.
As with our own variations on a theme, capitalism sees more failures than successes with new starts. It's just another step on the belief path that tells everybody that all are equal, all gifted, and that only opportunity denied some by wicked forces is what holds them back. Why would anyone imagine the Chinese are any different - they are just people like the rest of us.
Do you think that vast amounts of money best spent otherwise do not also go up in smoke when a private business goes tits up? And with them, hopes, dreams and life savings, sometimes? Of all people, you know that! Nothing is safe; everything that depends on anything beyond ourselves is wide open to disaster at some stage or another. Government holds no monopoly on mistakes.
Yes in the end we're all in God's hands.
-
My wife an I are planning a vacation. We've never been to Great Britain. I'd like to photograph Scotland and visit Wales, England, Ireland, etc. I see the pound dropped to its lowest in a while. So it should be cheaper to travel there. What do you think? Good time to visit? (when it's cooler also). What about driving? I'd be driving on the opposite side something I haven't done in 50 years when I was in Japan. Car travel there or trains or...?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49156403
-
My wife an I are planning a vacation. We've never been to Great Britain. . . . What do you think?
I'm sure you'll have a great time. A few tips for a first-time U.S. visitor:
- Don't forget to look to the right before crossing the road.
- Spread plenty of Marmite on your morning toast (which will be served cold from a quaint contraption known as a "toast rack").
- Wear your MAGA baseball cap wherever you go. Brits love Donald Trump.
-
I'm sure you'll have a great time. A few tips for a first-time U.S. visitor:
- Don't forget to look to the right before crossing the road.
- Spread plenty of Marmite on your morning toast (which will be served cold from a quaint contraption known as a "toast rack").
- Wear your MAGA baseball cap wherever you go. Brits love Donald Trump.
OK. Great. I'll take some extra caps to pass out. Thanks for the tip. :)
-
OK. Great. I'll take some extra caps to pass out. Thanks for the tip. :)
And if you eat meat: don't chop it all up at one go: the staff will wonder where you hid the kid. Cut from the piece as you require it.
We were doing that in Florida at dinner one night, and a party of women stopped to gawk. This is not tongue-in-cheek (you seldom get that in the UK - tongue) and I can't remember if we did or did not get a round of applause.
Regarding your caps for the natives: best not offer them in Scotland. If in Glasgow, wear nothing blue or green. Don't let your wife wear a fur.
Drinks (spirits) come in tiny measures wrapped in huge prices.
Don't think something's amiss if you suddenly realise you can't understand people. Some accents are so impossible that only families can make out what's going down. "Hey, Jimmy" is not a term of endearment.
If you drive, don't tailgate; using a horn is a challenge. If at traffic lights in main city centres, make sure you don't get stuck in the patch of lines between them: you could get fined; make sure you can exit that no-man's land before you enter it.
Light sequences: Red, Red-Amber, Green. Then in the opposite way, it's Green, Amber, Red. (That game with the amber lets you know if the next change is going to be Stop or Go.)
I can't recall any equivalent to the American turn right at red lights; it would of course be turn left, in the UK, but I really don't remember ever coming across that system.
To get the best of Scotland you need a car, and to leave the two big cities behind. Perthshire is a rather nice area. We honeymooned at Loch Tay. (We were very young and very impecunious!)
Other than that, you should have a nice time as long as you don't try to feed the monster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FYJydaClRA
The above is a link to Albert Watson's Part 1, shooting on the island of Skye. There's a Part 2 which is now unobtainable on my list of favs. Worth the hunt for it.
A nice break for you from politics - if you go!
Rob
-
Be careful to refer to the people of Scotland as Scotch rather than Scots and be sure to ask for a Glasgow Kiss, they'll love you all the more for it.
-
Be careful to refer to the people of Scotland as Scotch rather than Scots and be sure to ask for a Glasgow Kiss, they'll love you all the more for it.
That's cruel. What harm did the guy ever do you?
:-)
-
And if you eat meat: don't chop it all up at one go: the staff will wonder where you hid the kid. Cut from the piece as you require it.
We were doing that in Florida at dinner one night, and a party of women stopped to gawk. This is not tongue-in-cheek (you seldom get that in the UK - tongue) and I can't remember if we did or did not get a round of applause.
Regarding your caps for the natives: best not offer them in Scotland. If in Glasgow, wear nothing blue or green. Don't let your wife wear a fur.
Drinks (spirits) come in tiny measures wrapped in huge prices.
Don't think something's amiss if you suddenly realise you can't understand people. Some accents are so impossible that only families can make out what's going down. "Hey, Jimmy" is not a term of endearment.
If you drive, don't tailgate; using a horn is a challenge. If at traffic lights in main city centres, make sure you don't get stuck in the patch of lines between them: you could get fined; make sure you can exit that no-man's land before you enter it.
Light sequences: Red, Red-Amber, Green. Then in the opposite way, it's Green, Amber, Red. (That game with the amber lets you know if the next change is going to be Stop or Go.)
I can't recall any equivalent to the American turn right at red lights; it would of course be turn left, in the UK, but I really don't remember ever coming across that system.
To get the best of Scotland you need a car, and to leave the two big cities behind. Perthshire is a rather nice area. We honeymooned at Loch Tay. (We were very young and very impecunious!)
Other than that, you should have a nice time as long as you don't try to feed the monster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FYJydaClRA
The above is a link to Albert Watson's Part 1, shooting on the island of Skye. There's a Part 2 which is now unobtainable on my list of favs. Worth the hunt for it.
A nice break for you from politics - if you go!
Rob
Thanks for the tips. I think we'll take a bus. :)
-
Be careful to refer to the people of Scotland as Scotch rather than Scots and be sure to ask for a Glasgow Kiss, they'll love you all the more for it.
It's nice to know the Scots are so friendly.
-
It's nice to know the Scots are so friendly.
They've had a hard time. Much that was worth holding on to drifted south. London is a big Hoover.
-
My wife an I are planning a vacation. We've never been to Great Britain. I'd like to photograph Scotland and visit Wales, England, Ireland, etc...
Stick to a deep province, if you want to meet the Brits. Otherwise, you might find a cheaper vacation if you want to visit the Middle East.
-
I remember Scotland as a beautiful country, with friendly people...
A friend of mine was married there in kilt... he looked great!
back to Brexit:
A hard border between the Irelands will become onavoidable in a hard Brexit.
and as AL-Jazeera points out: The Iran problems and Brexit problems have become connected.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/boris-johnson-handle-tanker-row-iran-190730150041762.html
-
Stick to a deep province, if you want to meet the Brits. Otherwise, you might find a cheaper vacation if you want to visit the Middle East.
I think you forgot the ;)
-
I think you forgot the ;)
Oh, yeah, thanks! ;)
-
I remember Scotland as a beautiful country, with friendly people...
A friend of mine was married there in kilt... he looked great!
back to Brexit:
A hard border between the Irelands will become onavoidable in a hard Brexit.
and as AL-Jazeera points out: The Iran problems and Brexit problems have become connected.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/boris-johnson-handle-tanker-row-iran-190730150041762.html
Of course it becomes inevitable: one would be dealing with sovereign nations that, by definition, have natural, sovereign borders; secondly, one of them remains part of a larger grouping to which it subscribes, and with whom it has other, secondary boundary agreements it cannot breach.
The Northern Ireland border sell is just that: another Brexiteer bare-faced lie visible to all, including the Brexiteering voters. That they know this but vote for it regardless is a sign of the times, mirrored here on these pages with the Dem/Rep arguments, where intelligent - some highly - people understand and recognize the lies and the failings of both sides of the argument, but yet cannot bring themselves to do anything but cheer for the home team.
Frankly, I think we are at a point in history where a dramatic change is going to hit us, something worldwide and on a different scale to anything we have witnessed before. I feel it is inevitable because the old internal and external groupings are falling apart as we write.
Far from the European Union model being outdated, I think it was a well-considered, prescient concept by serious minds anticipating this current scenario.
Ties with America? I think a few posters here have it about right: the US can be isolationist and survive; most other countries are too small for that. Why would It want to form strong links with a tiny country that has proved itself capable of choosing commercial suicide by turning its back on its closest and best customers, and not only customers, but providers of employment in co-production endeavours? What would make the US imagine that it would be treated with more common sense, and not be ditched for even more unlikely combinations with the old empire? It amazes to see that so many think that empire has left a trail of thankful people who would love nothing more than to have it back. Must be the same kool-aid as those in Hong Kong have sipped, those who dream about a new British sovereignty there.
-
I think there has never been a more entertaining politician than Boris. Even the professional comedian-turned politician (the president of Ukraine) can not probably match him. This is so refreshing and delightful. A highly intelligent politician daring to speak truth to power and do it in such a ROTF manner.
I already love him!
P.S. I hope he can make London great British again
-
I think there has never been a more entertaining politician than Boris. Even the professional comedian-turned politician (the president of Ukraine) can not probably match him. This is so refreshing and delightful. A highly intelligent politician daring to speak truth to power and do it in such a ROTF manner.
I already love him!
P.S. I hope he can make London great British again
You are joking, of course: he was major of London for long enough; and he achieved what?
Slobodan, we are dealing with rich dynasties here, people who have no need to work for their supper, have investments scattered around the world - probably mostly entirely legally - and for whom politics is a mind game with the prize being the office, exactly as in the States. What care they for the consequences of their game as long as they win? They float well above it, insulated from everything but assassination attempts which, I suppose, they are well-protected from most of the time.
I wouldn't want to be one of them for all the tea in etc. Believe it or not, I have more self-respect.
Rob
-
Boris, the buffoon's buffoon.
-
Boris, the buffoon's buffoon.
+ 100%
Dangerous clown.
-
Boris, the buffoon's buffoon.
Dangerous clown.
And so Trump-like in so many respects—except, of course, that Boris speaks English.
-
And so Trump-like in so many respects....
The best thing that could have happened to world. Enough of elite liberal sissies that created this mess in the first place.
-
The best thing that could have happened to world. Enough of elite liberal sissies that created this mess in the first place.
"Elite liberal sissies"? You're killing me, man.
Btw, which mess do you mean?
-
... Btw, which mess do you mean?
The mess that all those "highly educated, experienced, professional, capable, reasonable, level-headed experts," diplomats and politicians before Trump and Boris created: Brexit, Israel-Palestine, Middle East, North Korea, China, Syria, refugees, etc.
-
What does this mean?
Sinn Féin warns Boris Johnson over no-deal Brexit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ta6oh4DbQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ta6oh4DbQ)
-
The best thing that could have happened to world. Enough of elite liberal sissies that created this mess in the first place.
Do i hear the angry working man that voted for Trump? Who is going to make America GREAT AGAIN? He is cutting taxes for the rich.... (Trump)
The working man's loan has not risen enough with the costs the last 4 decades. The middle class - once so strong in the 1960's- becomes smaller and have less to spend.
https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
" High Income: If you have a very high income, the tax plan helps you the most. The Tax Foundation said those who earn more than 95% of the population would receive a 2.2% increase in after-tax income. Those in the 20% to 80% range would receive a 1.7% increase. The Tax Policy Center said those in bottom 20% would only receive a 0.4% increase. " ...
"The Tax Act may curtail economic growth in the long run. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Act will add $1 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years."
edit
just came in:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49187126
Trump's former top adviser: tariffs backfiring on US
-
What does this mean?
Sinn Féin warns Boris Johnson over no-deal Brexit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ta6oh4DbQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ta6oh4DbQ)
Many different things to many different people; exactly as all politicians pronounce - but with a difficult accent.
Rob
-
The mess that all those "highly educated, experienced, professional, capable, reasonable, level-headed experts," diplomats and politicians before Trump and Boris created: Brexit, Israel-Palestine, Middle East, North Korea, China, Syria, refugees, etc.
Don't forget the "long-hairs" !
-
Do i hear the angry working man that voted for Trump? Who is going to make America GREAT AGAIN? He is cutting taxes for the rich.... (Trump)
The working man's loan has not risen enough with the costs the last 4 decades. The middle class - once so strong in the 1960's- becomes smaller and have less to spend.
https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
" High Income: If you have a very high income, the tax plan helps you the most. The Tax Foundation said those who earn more than 95% of the population would receive a 2.2% increase in after-tax income. Those in the 20% to 80% range would receive a 1.7% increase. The Tax Policy Center said those in bottom 20% would only receive a 0.4% increase. " ...
"The Tax Act may curtail economic growth in the long run. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Act will add $1 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years."
edit
just came in:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49187126
Trump's former top adviser: tariffs backfiring on US
Taxes aren't any better in Europe, actually they're higher. But the main problem for both continents is that the people want more than they're willing to pay in taxes. So both parties here print and borrow and go further into debt. It's going to end badly for everyone. You too.
-
...
edit
just came in:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49187126
Trump's former top adviser: tariffs backfiring on US
Tariffs helped settle the revised NAFTA deal. It also pushed Mexico to help with our illegal immigration problem. While the deal isn't done with China yet, hopefully it will help to get them to stop stealing our intellectual property which even Gary Cohn the ex-Trump advisor in the article said was the right thing to do. It might help open up China even more to the west's businesses. We're in an economic war with China. We're fighting a battle and both sides have casualties. But the war isn't over. If America can win this battle, your country will benefit as well without having to suffer casualties like us. Of course, Americans are use to dying for others.
-
Before you get yet another thread blocked, keep Brexit stuff Brexit stuff, please.
Rob
-
OK.
1. Will Britain be ready to equalize all tariffs between our countries or better still drop tariffs completely?
2. What deals would you like to see the US make after Brexit?
-
OK.
1. Will Britain be ready to equalize all tariffs between our countries or better still drop tariffs completely?
2. What deals would you like to see the US make after Brexit?
Interesting thing that you think that dropping tariffs is a good idea. Why were you then in favour of Trump pulling out of those free-trade agreements and raising tariffs to protect US workers?
-
Before you get yet another thread blocked, keep Brexit stuff Brexit stuff, please.
Thanks, Rob. You beat me to it.
Jeremy
-
Todays news... Wales wakes up
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-49200636
".. recently-elected Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson said: "Boris Johnson's shrinking majority makes it clear that he has no mandate to crash us out of the EU."
-
Interesting thing that you think that dropping tariffs is a good idea. Why were you then in favour of Trump pulling out of those free-trade agreements and raising tariffs to protect US workers?
Your answer doesn;t have anything to do with Brexit or trade between the US and Great Britain. When Brexit happens, Britain will be starting fresh with the US. It will no longer be in the EU and have to comply with EU rules. So everything is open for negotiation. Certainly, you;re going to have to negotiate trade rules with the EU. However, you also have to negotiate separate trade with the US as you will with other countries outside the EU. So,
1. Will Britain be willing to equalize all tariffs with the US or better still drop tariffs completely?
2. What other deals would you like to see the US and Britain make after Brexit? These can be economic, trade or other. After all, once out of the EU, all kinds of things have to be renegotiated. GB won;t be constrained by EU rules in many areas. It will be a new world for GB. Have you thought about these things?
-
Your answer doesn;t have anything to do with Brexit or trade between the US and Great Britain. When Brexit happens, Britain will be starting fresh with the US. It will no longer be in the EU and have to comply with EU rules. So everything is open for negotiation. Certainly, you;re going to have to negotiate trade rules with the EU. However, you also have to negotiate separate trade with the US as you will with other countries outside the EU. So,
1. Will Britain be willing to equalize all tariffs with the US or better still drop tariffs completely?
2. What other deals would you like to see the US and Britain make after Brexit? These can be economic, trade or other. After all, once out of the EU, all kinds of things have to be renegotiated. GB won;t be constrained by EU rules in many areas. It will be a new world for GB. Have you thought about these things?
You are forgetting something vital: negotiations and positions within them depend on the relative power of the negotiating bodies. I imagine that as an ex-business man you have just forgotten that fact for the moment.
Vis-à-vis Mr Trump's fiefdom v. The Disunited Kingdom, the trump cards are all at one chair, and that's not the little one on the east of the Atlantic.
Go figure the deals you, as a Brit, are gonna get! But, whatever turd it be, you can bet that the Conservative extreme right will advertise it as an opportunity, validating the pains and collateral damages of Brexit.
As the man said, there's a special place in hell for those who initiated Brexit without having a single plan as to what to do if it comes. This started three years ago, and guess what: they still haven't the foggiest idea what to do other than try to blame the rest of the club, as if they were the ones to blame, when it's the pesky Brits doing the leaving nobody wants them to do. The Boris stance: do as we say or it's your fault if Britain sinks like a friggin' stone. No-deal Brexit by default, then, blame shoved next door by making impossible demands of the neighbours, knowing such demands cannot be met. Shakespear was Englsh, so I guess tragedies of that nature are to be expected some years down the line. Anyway, the poor Greeks are always there to be blamed for tragedies if not Shakespeare.
Regarding it being a new world for Britain: it was that very world we knowingly quit for the better one within the strength of a larger Europe! Today, we will find ourselves even more tiny than we were before, old empire ties thoughtlessly spurned, as now we imagine to rekindle them with those waiting for us with warm hugs and wet kisses.
-
Your answer doesn;t have anything to do with Brexit or trade between the US and Great Britain. When Brexit happens, Britain will be starting fresh with the US. It will no longer be in the EU and have to comply with EU rules. So everything is open for negotiation. Certainly, you;re going to have to negotiate trade rules with the EU. However, you also have to negotiate separate trade with the US as you will with other countries outside the EU. So,
1. Will Britain be willing to equalize all tariffs with the US or better still drop tariffs completely?
2. What other deals would you like to see the US and Britain make after Brexit? These can be economic, trade or other. After all, once out of the EU, all kinds of things have to be renegotiated. GB won;t be constrained by EU rules in many areas. It will be a new world for GB. Have you thought about these things?
Ok, but are tariffs good or bad then?
-
Not sure why you think the UK will be able to negotiate lower tariffs with the rest of the world than the EU. They could just as easily be higher. And any savings from lower tariffs are likely to be more than offset by a lower pound sterling, so I'm not sure the UK has a lot to look forward to.
-
Not sure why you think the UK will be able to negotiate lower tariffs with the rest of the world than the EU. They could just as easily be higher. And any savings from lower tariffs are likely to be more than offset by a lower pound sterling, so I'm not sure the UK has a lot to look forward to.
It's got a lot to look forward to, all of it bad!
Rob
-
I agree America is in a better negotiating position. But if tariffs are bad for America as some of you claim, then they are also bad for any other country including GB. So, wouldn't it be fresh if both America and GB start off without them? Or some minor tariffs on both sides that politicians absolutely need so they can possibly get re-elected, but nothing beyond that. Of course that would be helpful to us when we negotiate with the EU in dropping their tariffs as well.
I'm glad we settled that. :)
Now regarding other issues, what other areas between us would be a good deal to make politically, militarily, etc. that has to be worked out or should be worked out considering the rules are gone after Brexit?
-
Not sure why you think the UK will be able to negotiate lower tariffs with the rest of the world than the EU. They could just as easily be higher. And any savings from lower tariffs are likely to be more than offset by a lower pound sterling, so I'm not sure the UK has a lot to look forward to.
I don;t understand your point. GB can set their tariffs as low as they want or have none at all. That's up to them.
Also lower currency evaluations raises exports which should be good for GB workers.
-
I agree America is in a better negotiating position. But if tariffs are bad for America as some of you claim, then they are also bad for any other country including GB. So, wouldn't it be fresh if both America and GB start off without them? Or some minor tariffs on both sides that politicians absolutely need so they get possibly get re-elected, but nothing beyond that. Of course that would be helpful to us when we negotiate with the EU in dropping their tariffs as well.
I'm glad we settled that. :)
Now regarding other issues, what other areas between us would be a good deal to make politically, militarily, etc. that has to be worked out or should be worked out considering the rules are gone after Brexit?
You can't just claim tarrifs to be good or bad; it all depends on the position in which you find yourself, which goods and/or services you have to offer, and how the other side is fitted up in the same areas. Then, it's back to muscle, which is where we came in. The rest is wishful thinking. There is not going to be a level playing field outwith larger groupings such as the EU; as far as I know, even your own states have taxation differences in the form of local sales taxes etc. and so imagine how Britain would fit in, hundreds of miles away across an expensive ocean and on its commercial knees as it kisses the US boot for crumbs.
Hell, Mexico would be in a better position, both geographically as goepolitically: you, the US, can get cheap labour and/or production facilities where you desire them, and both of you hold cards in the migrants game, which the UK, not being within outboard engine range, cannot: the other side of the migrants issue, and the power games sides can play, the migrants, as ever, pawns in the game.
-
Try answering this for yourself (no need to share with us), name 10 (or 5) products manufactured in the UK that the rest of the world cannot do without?
The 1% in the US like Jaguars and Range Rovers, which is why vehicles are the number one import from the UK to the US. I like Stilton cheese, but I don't think that is going to move any needles. I'm struggling finding other things.
-
You can't just claim tarrifs to be good or bad; it all depends on the position in which you find yourself, which goods and/or services you have to offer, and how the other side is fitted up in the same areas. Then, it's back to muscle, which is where we came in. The rest is wishful thinking. There is not going to be a level playing field outwith larger groupings such as the EU; as far as I know, even your own states have taxation differences in the form of local sales taxes etc. and so imagine how Britain would fit in, hundreds of miles away across an expensive ocean and on its commercial knees as it kisses the US boot for crumbs.
Hell, Mexico would be in a better position, both geographically as goepolitically: you, the US, can get cheap labour and/or production facilities where you desire them, and both of you hold cards in the migrants game, which the UK, not being within outboard engine range, cannot: the other side of the migrants issue, and the power games sides can play, the migrants, as ever, pawns in the game.
Sales taxes are not the same as tariffs. Even in the US. With sales taxes, all products whether imported from other states or manufactured in the sales tax state are assessed at the same sales tax rate. Local made products within that state have no inherent price advantage.
Tariffs are different. They are applied to imports only. The same products manufactured in the country are not assessed. This makes domestic products cheaper causing unfair competition with foreign manufacturers.
It's interesting that this came up a few years back. NYS imposed a tax on wine imported from other states like California. The special sales tax was not applied to domestic NYS wine so NYS wine could sell better. California sued in the US Supreme Court and one. SCOTUS determined NYS was in violation of interstate commerce rules in our Constitution that did not allow state "tariffs". So NYS had to drop the extra tax on "foreign" wine.
-
Try answering this for yourself (no need to share with us), name 10 (or 5) products manufactured in the UK that the rest of the world cannot do without?
The current top 10 export products are also exported to Europe, without import duties, but that will change.
Cheers,
Bart
Terrific BBC detective series and drama in general. Well, comedy too for that matter. Good history television too.
-
Tariffs are different. They are applied to imports only. The same products manufactured in the country are not assessed. This makes domestic products cheaper causing unfair competition with foreign manufacturers.
Only if the cost of the production is the same, which it is not. That is why virtually everything in Walmart is made in China.
-
I don;t understand your point. GB can set their tariffs as low as they want or have none at all. That's up to them.
Also lower currency evaluations raises exports which should be good for GB workers.
Tell me about lower values of the pound. Tell it to all those "GB workers" off on holiday to other European countries. Tell it to your British credit card next time you visit the supermarket for your weekly shopping.
Think about it when your next trip abroad to Europe includes buying travel insurance you once did perfectly well without, the serious stuff once yours for the asking anywhere in the member countries, be they down on the Costas or up in the Alps.
Be grateful the next time a factory closes because your leaders have decided that having joint production ventures with other European countries wasn't worth keeping; you can always claim unemployment benefits, can't you?
I won't even mention the plight of us old sods living abroad, caught in a mess not of our own making, and upon which we could not vote, pensions rendered even lower than they were to begin with (to get an idea ot relativity: France is trying to establish a single pensions system to rationalise the many different ones that currently complictate life there; the suggested, common level, is almost double what I get from her Majesty's gracious government.) You get an idea of who the poor relations within Europe already are?
Lower the value of the pound, and you at once make it even less attractive for all those highly skilled Spanish (and others) nurses and doctors to consider facing a working life in a grim Britain, once a reasonable trade because of the slightly higher salaries and value of the pound against both the local salaries and the euro currency. Recruitment has already tumbled.
Yeah, as Harold Wilson said to international laughter: devaluation doesn't mean that the pound in your pocket is worth less...
(Jeez, I currently feel betrayed by my own erstwhile party of choice, but thinking back to the lunatics on the left, as dear Harold & Co., makes me even more desperate; perhaps the Libs may now come back with a reformed programme and set of realistic aims - they wiped the floor with the Conservatives yesterday at a local election, as the only anti-Brexit party on offer. There may be a silver lining behind that twister after all!)
-
Only if the cost of the production is the same, which it is not. That is why virtually everything in Walmart is made in China.
First off, regardless of cost to manufacture, if your product has a tariff that isn't applied to domestic made, the foreign manufacturer is working at a disadvantage. In any case, China is suffering because of US tariffs even though their cost of production is so much less than if made in the US. AFter all, they have to compete with Vietnam and other foreign manufacturers who have similar cost of production. Walmart and others are already shifting manufacturers to other countries. China is reeling from that despite what you read in the anti-Trump biased press. Even some Democrats agree with Trump. If Apple shifts their production for example to another country, they'll never go back to China. China knows that and is worried plenty. As Trump squeezes more and more, it will hurt them more and more. It's not over, but we'll see what happens.
So if GB charges a tariff to US products that isn't applied to similar products made in other European countries, it will be harder for America to sell it's products to GB. That's why we don;t want tariffs.
By the way trade between the US and GB is over 200 billion. A little over $100 billion each way.
-
... NYS imposed a tax on wine imported from other states like California... California sued...
Dems on Dems violence! ;D ;D ;D
-
Terrific BBC detective series and drama in general. Well, comedy too for that matter. Good history television too.
Finally we agree on something! ;)
-
First off, regardless of cost to manufacture, if your product has a tariff that isn't applied to domestic made, the foreign manufacturer is working at a disadvantage. In any case, China is suffering because of US tariffs even though their cost of production is so much less than if made in the US. AFter all, they have to compete with Vietnam and other foreign manufacturers who have similar cost of production. Walmart and others are already shifting manufacturers to other countries. China is reeling from that despite what you read in the anti-Trump biased press. Even some Democrats agree with Trump. If Apple shifts their production for example to another country, they'll never go back to China. China knows that and is worried plenty. As Trump squeezes more and more, it will hurt them more and more. It's not over, but we'll see what happens.
So if GB charges a tariff to US products that isn't applied to similar products made in other European countries, it will be harder for America to sell it's products to GB. That's why we don;t want tariffs.
By the way trade between the US and GB is over 200 billion. A little over $100 billion each way.
Boris is already promising billions, left, right and centre to cushion Brexit damage (at once, inadvertently, admitting it's real!) so what do a few hundred of them matter when you operate in cloud cuckoo format? From where will all of these billions come, from the same 350 million per week that they lyingly told us were going to be diverted to the health service once we left Europe, and denied as "mistake" instantly, the very day they knew they had won the referendum? There are no existing billions to spend; there is only greater debt - should anyone be dumb enough to lend in the first place.
-
This paints the sobering picture more clearly:
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/gbr/#Exports
1. There's a trade deficit, the UK imports more than it exports. So it needs to make better deals on its own than it could as a member of Europe.
2. Something in the order of 39% is exported to Europe, currently without import duties.
3. Some 12% is exported to Asia and the Middle East. If the UK adopts the same export duties as it does now, not much will change. But will they get as good a deal for imports as they get as a European member?
4. Some 11% is exported to the USA, so if the USA will drop duties and taxation, there's some potential upside. But will the USA do that? Will the USA give the UK as good import duties as they currently have as a member of Europe?
So even with their largest customer, Europe, they may lose market share if duties are added that are currently not added in an internal market.
It really looks grim, and I do not say that with any joy whatsoever.
Cheers,
Bart
Those figures, at around 42 billion, are less than half Alan's figures.
Shakespeare, Denmark and little smells.
-
OEC figures as per 2017:
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/gbr/#Exports
Exports Total: $395B
Imports Total: $618B
Alan and Rob were talking about imports/exports between the US and UK.
-
Ah, but Brexit is bigger than that... The biggest trading partner is Europe.
In the event of a no-deal Brexit, what tariffs will be applicable to goods from the UK?
-
Terrific BBC detective series and drama in general. Well, comedy too for that matter. Good history television too.
+ music !
-
Boris is already promising billions, left, right and centre to cushion Brexit damage (at once, inadvertently, admitting it's real!) so what do a few hundred of them matter when you operate in cloud cuckoo format? From where will all of these billions come, from the same 350 million per week that they lyingly told us were going to be diverted to the health service once we left Europe, and denied as "mistake" instantly, the very day they knew they had won the referendum? There are no existing billions to spend; there is only greater debt - should anyone be dumb enough to lend in the first place.
Well, Obama lied to us as well. He told us with Obamacare, we could keep the doctors we had and it won't cost more than we're paying now. Both lies.
-
Well, Obama lied to us as well. He told us with Obamacare, we could keep the doctors we had and it won't cost more than we're paying now. Both lies.
Not sure what Obamas statements about the ACA have to do with Boris Johnson and Brexit. Perhaps you can elaborate.
-
Not sure what Obamas statements about the ACA have to do with Boris Johnson and Brexit. Perhaps you can elaborate.
Jus that both leaders lied to the public to get their legislation approved.
-
Ah, but Brexit is bigger than that.
The top export destinations of the United Kingdom are the United States ($45.2B), Germany ($38.6B), the Netherlands ($24.9B), France ($24.8B) and China ($21.9B).
The top import origins of the United Kingdom are Germany ($90.3B), China ($58.9B), the Netherlands ($47B), the United States ($46.6B) and France ($36B).
All per 2017. The biggest trading partner is Europe.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart Your numbers may only include goods but not services.
Here are the full amounts from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative:
"U.S. goods and services trade with United Kingdom totaled an estimated $262.3 billion in 2018. Exports were $141.1 billion; imports were $121.2 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with United Kingdom was $19.9 billion in 2018.
United Kingdom is currently our 7th largest goods trading partner with $127.0 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2018. Goods exports totaled $66.2 billion; goods imports totaled $60.8 billion. The U.S. goods trade surplus with United Kingdom was $5.4 billion in 2018.
Trade in services with United Kingdom (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $135.3 billion in 2018. Services exports were $74.9 billion; services imports were $60.4 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with United Kingdom was $14.5 billion in 2018.
According to the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of Goods and Services to United Kingdom supported an estimated 665 thousand jobs in 2015 (latest data available) (238 thousand supported by goods exports and 427 thousand supported by services exports)."
https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/united-kingdom (https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/united-kingdom)
-
Bart Your numbers may only include goods but not services.
Services are not subject to tariffs.
-
A no-deal Brexit will result in import tariffs with the EU, but the British want lower tariffs for countries outside the EU.
The British Government is going to abolish almost all import duties in the case of leaving the European Union without an agreement, the no-deal Brexit. This would mainly affect trade relations with countries outside the EU.
The British media reported that 80% of imports are already being imported duty-free, but after the no-deal Brexit, this will be 87% on average in the government's plans.
Import duties for EU countries at no deal Brexit
In contrast to the current situation, EU countries will be subject to import duties, including on fuel, artificial fertilisers, certain types of fruit and fish, dairy products, meat and cars. A new car from the EU would then be taxed at a rate of more than 10%. London is planned to introduce import duties on 18% of goods imported from the EU in the event of a chaotic brexit.
But there are lots of other additional costs involved, waiting times at the border, administration (paperwork), prolonged cooled storage for perishable goods, larger stock supplies instead of JIT delivery, etc., etc. Lots of personnel need to be trained/attracted from other countries to do that additional work that used to be done centrally from Brussels (like making Trade agreements). And it looks like little has been done in the UK, unlike in Europe where customs officers have been trained, extra warehouses have been built, computer systems have been upgraded, etc.
And the Irish border will become a big issue, and social tensions will rise.
Cheers,
Bart
If GB and the US drop all tariffs, trade between the two countries will increase helping out GB from losses with the EU. If the EU applies tariffs to GB products, then GB will do the same. So both side will be interested in dropping tariffs so they don;t lose trade with the other. Now because of political complaints with the EU members, there may have to a little tariffs. Maybe 5% or under just to keep EU members quiet as their tariffs among the Eu members remain at zero.
-
Services are not subject to tariffs.
Bart will deny it, but he thought he was talking about full imports and exports not just goods.
-
If GB and the US drop all tariffs, trade between the two countries will increase helping out GB from losses with the EU. If the EU applies tariffs to GB products, then GB will do the same. So both side will be interested in dropping tariffs so they don;t lose trade with the other. Now because of political complaints with the EU members, there may have to a little tariffs. Maybe 5% or under just to keep EU members quiet as their tariffs among the Eu members remain at zero.
And then the good fairy said 'night, children, sleep well!
-
And then the good fairy said 'night, children, sleep well!
Rob, I'm trying to be positive for you and GB. Why do you feel that the US and GB couldn;t make a deal with no tariffs? Why do you feel that the EU and GB couldn't make a deal with tariffs slightly higher than those among the remaining EU members if not any at all? After all, it's to everyone's advantage not to have tariffs as is the case now.
Here's an idea. You Brits and we Americans make a trade deal where there are no tariffs between us. Let's call it, eh, BATS - The British American Trade Settlement. Then you and we tell the EU they will be charged tariffs if they charge our members, Great Britain and America, any tariffs on our exports to them. In fact, we will double EU tariffs on their exports to our countries. Sort of what we're doing to China. What do you think the German auto manufacturers from Mercedes, BMW et al will tell Merkel? "Das Brits and das Americans are batty. You got to drop tariffs or ve go out of business." Walla! Now GB and the US are selling our goods to Europe with no tariffs. The Irish march in the street praising, "Long Live the Queen and all Her Little Grandchildren."
You see how that works.
-
Here's what's wrong with such reasoning. You seem to think that 'Tariffs are penalties to get at the other party/parties', and bully them into doing something they don't want to do. That's similar to the very simplistic reasoning that Trump entertains. Instead, tariffs are to level the playing field, not merely hurt your trading partner where it hurts most.
See? That's nonsense, or as Rob put it in more veiled words; "And then the good fairy said 'night, children, sleep well!". We Dutch often don't have such patience, we just say it as it is, and don't leave it floating in the air. Get it over with, and move on. That's also what I referred to in another post, when I mentioned cultural differences.
Because in the real world, outside fairyland, tariffs are tuned to those products that need a more level playing field. Since one generally mostly imports different products than one exports to the same trading partner, one cannot compensate for one product line's tariffs by simplistically changing the tariff on another product line. That would only trigger a spiraling tariff situation for the worst, and competition claiming the prize.
Cheers,
Bart
The tariffs I proposed is not to hurt my trading partner. It is to level the playing field. That's exactly what I proposed. Please re-read my post. If Europe applies tariffs on British and American BATS products, we will apply the same tariffs on EU products shipped to Britain and the US. That levels the playing field. What is it about that you don't understand? So if Europe wants us to drop our BATS tariffs, we will at the same time Europe drops theirs' on Britain and America. The whole idea of tariffs is to product your own products by adding tariffs on similar products that are imported. If the products are not imported, then there wouldn't even be a need for a tariff because you're not buying the product. So obviously, the problem is tariffs on products both sides sell. If Europe sell America $50 billion in cars and we sell $5 billion and you charge 25% tariff, we will increase our tariff on your $50 billion in cars to 25% so we have an even playing field. If you decide to eliminate tariff on cars, so will we. What's unfair about that?
-
Nothing to do with fair or unfair.
China will be selling you the same cars at a much better price, since in your dream model you both artificially increased your prices.
Cheers,
Bart
Non-sequitur. This is between Europe and BATS. Britain and the US will charge Europe the same tariffs you charge us. IF China charges us tariffs on our cars and other products we ship them, we will do they same with their cars and other products they ship to us. They also have to stop stealing our intellectual property. If we make a deal, then there won;t be tariffs. Neither way will effect the deals and tariffs we make with Europe. The EU will have to make a deal co-jointly with Britain and the US.
PS: Rob, see how I fight for you and we?
-
This may get attention of the UK voters:
The plummeting value of the pound will mean holidaygoers lose out when it comes to spending on food, drink and travel this summer, financial experts have warned.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/30/get-20-fewer-pints-holiday-summer-thanks-falling-pound-10486318/
-
This may get attention of the UK voters:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/30/get-20-fewer-pints-holiday-summer-thanks-falling-pound-10486318/
Then, unless totally addled, he has to add on travel insurance. But some Brits have a well-developed sense of scam, and getting their money back. From " stolen" jewellery to upset tummies, they have manifold methods of claiming back the cost of their holiday. Mostly, it takes but one nervous travel company rep to sign a chit, and there you go. A police report for the stolen jewels you could probably never have afforded to buy in the first place, goes a long way too.
Isn't humanity a wonderful thing: ever ready to learn new techniques!
:-)
-
This may get attention of the UK voters:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/30/get-20-fewer-pints-holiday-summer-thanks-falling-pound-10486318/
More pounds spent domestically, helping British, not foreign economies.
-
More pounds spent domestically, helping British, not foreign economies.
yes, probably they also go back to underwear made of wool... ;)
-
More pounds spent domestically, helping British, not foreign economies.
Of course; is that anchor the lifestyle you desire?
I thought you guys were all about freedom to think and work outside the box, express yourselves and to travel...
All situation ethics, then?
:-)
-
Of course; is that anchor the lifestyle you desire?
I thought you guys were all about freedom to think and work outside the box, express yourselves and to travel...
All situation ethics, then?
:-)
Indeed, two legs good, four legs bad.
-
... four legs bad.
Depends on which side you approach it ;)
-
... I thought you guys were all about freedom to think and work outside the box, express yourselves and to travel...
Oh, but you see, Rob, we will continue to travel, our next destination, as Alan already demonstrated, is precisely Britain, with its weak pound. Nobody prevents you guys from traveling, you'd just need to work harder for that privilege ;)
-
Sterling reputation:
-
Oh, but you see, Rob, we will continue to travel, our next destination, as Alan already demonstrated, is precisely Britain, with its weak pound. Nobody prevents you guys from traveling, you'd just need to work harder for that privilege ;)
The Brexiteer mentality: it's close to the US one as expressed in the Chuck Berry song: "everything you want it you got it in the USA." Only the names need changed.
Why go to Britain at all? You wouldn't even like the beer.
:-)
-
... Why go to Britain at all? You wouldn't even like the beer.
Oh, but I do... Newcastle (Brown Ale) is my favorite. I just do not like the piss-warm temperature they serve it in Britain ;)
-
Oh, but I do... Newcastle (Brown Ale) is my favorite. I just do not like the piss-warm temperature they serve it in Britain ;)
Maybe because you are in that P... warm Miami ?
-
Heck no. Even the Lao put ice in Beer Lao. ;D ;)
-
Oh, but I do... Newcastle (Brown Ale) is my favorite. I just do not like the piss-warm temperature they serve it in Britain ;)
That's obviously my point: it's not cold enough for your tastes. What makes you imagine they're going to change a thing for you?
;-)
-
Hehe...
-
I can't imagine the staid British rioting.
"Boris Johnson urged to release secret official Brexit memo warning ministers about riots, soaring food prices and a deep recession"
https://www.insider.com/boris-johnson-told-to-release-secret-no-deal-breixit-doomsday-memo-2019-8 (https://www.insider.com/boris-johnson-told-to-release-secret-no-deal-breixit-doomsday-memo-2019-8)
-
I can't imagine the staid British rioting.
Believe it.
ANOTHER leaked No Deal Brexit dossier predicts fuel, food and medicine shortages, port chaos and Irish border disruption on Oct 31 as Boris Johnson vows to crash out the EU if necessary (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7368023/Leaked-papers-reveal-Britain-face-chaos-hard-Irish-border-leaves-EU-No-Deal.html)
The Sunday Times today published the full dossier on the so called Operation Yellowhammer.
It’s behind a paywall but, for many, registration should give you access.
An unprecedented leak of government documents has exposed gaps in no-deal Brexit contingency planning that could leave Britain facing shortages of fuel, food and medicine, a three-month meltdown at its ports, a hard border with Ireland and rising costs in social care. The Sunday Times has obtained the government's classified "Yellowhammer" report in full. (http://links.mailings2.thetimes.co.uk/ctt?kn=7&ms=NjkyNDM1OAS2&r=MjU4MTkwNzg2NjA1S0&b=0&j=MTMzMTE1NTMwOQS2&mt=1&rt=0)
They’ve also initiated a poll, still early , but so far ... see attached
-
I can't imagine the staid British rioting.
Which just demonstrates how little you know about the UK.
eg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_riots
-
I can't imagine the staid British rioting.
That's what you get from believing tv series.
The Brits can be - and are - as bolshie as anyone else. Step of their toes and see what you get back. They have as many demonstrations as anywhere else, and quite their quotient of violence, mob or individual.
Rob
-
ANOTHER leaked No Deal Brexit dossier predicts fuel, food and medicine shortages, port chaos and Irish border disruption on Oct 31 as Boris Johnson vows to crash out the EU if necessary (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7368023/Leaked-papers-reveal-Britain-face-chaos-hard-Irish-border-leaves-EU-No-Deal.html)
The leaked document deals with contingency planning, which includes addressing "worst case" scenarios. It would be deeply worrying if no such plans were in place.
Jeremy
-
The leaked document deals with contingency planning, which includes addressing "worst case" scenarios. It would be deeply worrying if no such plans were in place.
Indeed it does, as the first line of the quote box in my post clearly states.
Britain faces shortages of fuel, food and medicine, a three-month meltdown at its ports, a hard border with Ireland and rising costs in social care in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to an unprecedented leak of government documents that lay bare the gaps in contingency planning.
The documents, which set out the most likely aftershocks of a no-deal Brexit rather than worst-case scenarios, have emerged as the UK looks increasingly likely to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Compiled this month by the Cabinet Office under the codename Operation Yellowhammer, the dossier offers a rare glimpse into the covert planning being carried out by the government to avert a catastrophic collapse in the nation’s infrastructure.
A senior Whitehall source said: “This is not Project Fear — this is the most realistic assessment of what the public face with no deal. These are likely, basic, reasonable scenarios — not the worst case.”
’Black Swan‘ is the codename for worst-case-scenario planning.
-
Ford is lagging behind with electrification.
What is the basis for this statement? On a recent trip to Banff we had a Ford Fusion hybrid that we rented in Calgary. We drove it for five days and barely used 1/3 tank of gas. I should have noted the mileage to calculate fuel efficiency. It was quiet and had a nice build quality. I am not discounting the future of hybrid vehicles as they are not reliant on charging stations. Not having any experience with an all-electric vehicle I wonder what the cost of charging is. How long does it take to fully charge a battery? Can battery powered large trucks be built? Additionally, what is the long term battery life? I just had to replace my cell phone as the battery was beginning to die and this was only with 2.5 years of use. We keep our traditional gas fired Hondas for 12-13 years and they run just fine with no drop in fuel efficiency. Can the same be said about an electric car?
-
Which just demonstrates how little you know about the UK.
eg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_riots
It appears the British don't have good luck with taxes. When they imposed them on the British colonies over here, we revolted and started our Revolutionary War with them.
-
What is the basis for this statement? On a recent trip to Banff we had a Ford Fusion hybrid that we rented in Calgary. We drove it for five days and barely used 1/3 tank of gas. I should have noted the mileage to calculate fuel efficiency. It was quiet and had a nice build quality. I am not discounting the future of hybrid vehicles as they are not reliant on charging stations. Not having any experience with an all-electric vehicle I wonder what the cost of charging is. How long does it take to fully charge a battery? Can battery powered large trucks be built? Additionally, what is the long term battery life? I just had to replace my cell phone as the battery was beginning to die and this was only with 2.5 years of use. We keep our traditional gas fired Hondas for 12-13 years and they run just fine with no drop in fuel efficiency. Can the same be said about an electric car?
When I worked for NYC government, they had a fleet of Toyota Priuses, also hybrids. So I got a chance to use them a lot. They were peppy and nice to drive around the city traffic. However, they were expensive relative to cars with the same features. It's cost for the battery takes away value that gasoline powered cars can have in extra comfort features that make a car more desirable from a luxury standpoint, at the same price. Full electrics are even worse as they're totally reliant on electric and the battery is even more expensive. Also, I can't see them holding resale value. The battery has to be changed in 10 years making it expensive to service for the next buyer. Of the two, I'd rather go with a hybrid. You don't have to worry about electric charging stations (location and speed to recharge) or the limited driving range of full electrics.
-
When I worked for NYC government, they had a fleet of Toyota Priuses, also hybrids. So I got a chance to use them a lot. They were peppy and nice to drive around the city traffic. However, they were expensive relative to cars with the same features. It's cost for the battery takes away value that gasoline powered cars can have in extra comfort features that make a car more desirable from a luxury standpoint, at the same price. Full electrics are even worse as they're totally reliant on electric and the battery is even more expensive. Also, I can't see them holding resale value. The battery has to be changed in 10 years making it expensive to service for the next buyer. Of the two, I'd rather go with a hybrid. You don't have to worry about electric charging stations (location and speed to recharge) or the limited driving range of full electrics.
Almost all short-term talk about prices is a waste of time. The prices of consumer goods depend primarily on production volumes. Remember when everyone predicted that we'd never have large numbers of "full-frame" digicams. Priuses are expensive compared to Cruzes for similar reasons that Porsches are.
Remember when people said that introducing pollution controls in cars would destroy the industry. You don't hear them complaining about being able to breath the air in our cities now, do you?
And comparing technologies without fully accounting for historic subsidies of sunset industries and unaccounted-for "externalities" is basically propaganda. Koch Industries has loads of lobbyests on the payroll to propagate this tripe. Read past the con.
It's not what things cost that matters, it's what value you're getting. And it's also what it costs NOT to spend the money.
-
Almost all short-term talk about prices is a waste of time. The prices of consumer goods depend primarily on production volumes. Remember when everyone predicted that we'd never have large numbers of "full-frame" digicams. Priuses are expensive compared to Cruzes for similar reasons that Porsches are.
Remember when people said that introducing pollution controls in cars would destroy the industry. You don't hear them complaining about being able to breath the air in our cities now, do you?
And comparing technologies without fully accounting for historic subsidies of sunset industries and unaccounted-for "externalities" is basically propaganda. Koch Industries has loads of lobbyests on the payroll to propagate this tripe. Read past the con.
It's not what things cost that matters, it's what value you're getting. And it's also what it costs NOT to spend the money.
If you're dead set on an electric, I would lease for three years. Buying and getting stuck later on with a much depreciated auto would not be "valuable".
-
Both Alans and Robert ,
Are you aware of what thread you’re posting in ?
-
If you're dead set on an electric, I would lease for three years. Buying and getting stuck later on with a much depreciated auto would not be "valuable".
This might not have occurred to you, but the value of the car at the end of the term is factored into the lease rate.
-
This might not have occurred to you, but the value of the car at the end of the term is factored into the lease rate.
Taken over to the the other climate thread.
-
Both Alans and Robert ,
Are you aware of what thread you’re posting in ?
Quite right, I screwed up. My apologies. I'd better get that second cup of coffee soon.
-
... Food shortages for several months...
That can only be a good thing, given the UK’s precipitous slide into Obesitystan (as if Britainistan is not enough).
-
That can only be a good thing, given the UK’s precipitous slide into Obesitystan (as if Britainistan is not enough).
Careful; you could give the wrong impression of your sensibilities!
:-)
-
That can only be a good thing, given the UK’s precipitous slide into Obesitystan (as if Britainistan is not enough).
Food shortages welcome here:
-
it . . . does look like preciously little actual preparation (contingency planning) is going on at the UK side (which may be a distorted view due to media coverage). Food shortages for several months, and disruptions of medical supplies are no laughing matter.
Maybe the UK media prefer to report about the political side of things, but the man in the street will have a different perception of how the career politicians have taken care of the store.
Ahhh, never underestimate the power of Fake News.
How is this for a scenario? Boris takes the U.K. into a hard Brexit, triggering shortages in Britain and a Europe-wide recession, immediately loses an election, and from his perch as a resurrected newspaper columnist blames the new government for bungling his finely-engineered plans.
Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, Trump's trade wars trigger a collapse of the U.S. stock market and a continent-wide recession, Trump loses the election, and from his perch as the opiner-in-chief at the Fox cable news channel blames the newly-elected Democrats for destroying his booming economy.
Who knows, they may already be practicing their mantra: "Après nous, le déluge." (Although in Trump's case, it's likely to come out as "Afternoon, in Duluth.")
-
Ahhh, never underestimate the power of Fake News.
How is this for a scenario? Boris takes the U.K. into a hard Brexit, triggering shortages in Britain and a Europe-wide recession, immediately loses an election, and from his perch as a resurrected newspaper columnist blames the new government for bungling his finely-engineered plans.
Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, Trump's trade wars trigger a collapse of the U.S. stock market and a continent-wide recession, Trump loses the election, and from his perch as the opiner-in-chief at the Fox cable news channel blames the newly-elected Democrats for destroying his booming economy.
Who knows, they may already be practicing their mantra: "Après nous, le déluge." (Although in Trump's case, it's likely to come out as "Afternoon, in Duluth.")
I like that, though I fear it.
Rob
-
Ahhh, never underestimate the power of Fake News.
How is this for a scenario? Boris takes the U.K. into a hard Brexit, triggering shortages in Britain and a Europe-wide recession, immediately loses an election, and from his perch as a resurrected newspaper columnist blames the new government for bungling his finely-engineered plans.
Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, Trump's trade wars trigger a collapse of the U.S. stock market and a continent-wide recession, Trump loses the election, and from his perch as the opiner-in-chief at the Fox cable news channel blames the newly-elected Democrats for destroying his booming economy.
Who knows, they may already be practicing their mantra: "Après nous, le déluge." (Although in Trump's case, it's likely to come out as "Afternoon, in Duluth.")
Is Germany moving towards recession the fault of Britain or America? Europe is very capable of screwing things up all by themselves.
-
... Boris takes the U.K. into a hard Brexit, triggering shortages in Britain and a Europe-wide recession...
Then why is Europe such a jerk?
Treating a departing member in a friendly and supportive manner, instead of purely punitive, would make other members more willing to stay, and potential new members more willing to join.
-
Then why is Europe such a jerk?
Treating a departing member in a friendly and supportive manner, instead of purely punitive, would make other members more willing to stay, and potential new members more willing to join.
Europe might not be able to make a soft deal. However, they still want to sell their German autos, French wines, and other stuff to British buyers. So they have to make some accommodation. Of course, America will be in a stronger position to make a good deal with Britain as they'll need us more. And that might help us make a better trade deal with the rest of Europe. Everyone could benefit. :)
-
Then why is Europe such a jerk?
Treating a departing member in a friendly and supportive manner, instead of purely punitive, would make other members more willing to stay, and potential new members more willing to join.
Which is the "punitive" bit ?
-
Don't let facts get in the way, but the UK exports are some 39% to Europe, and 11% to the USA.
As far as imports go, something like 48% is coming from Europe, and 7.5% is coming from the USA.
Looks like the UK needs Europe more than anybody else and the reverse is also true.
That's why Brexit was a bad plan, but apparently such is life and shit happens ...
Cheers,
Bart
That's why it's such a mess: they had no plan, just a bunch of slogans and a couple of rented buses. And heaps of money. That it worked tells you more than you need to know about the intelligence of the British masses, without whose blind assistance it would not have flown.
It was a sell based on fear of other languages, the promises of heaven on Earth, and the wonderful excuse of being, at last, visibly and socially able to latch onto Johnny Foreigner as the cause of one's own mistakes, ineptitude and lack of ability to cut it in life.
And irony of ironies: the fear factor is what those same people now accuse those with open eyes of using when they outline all the horrors that await after a no-deal exit from our best customers. How brilliant an idea: walk out on the best deal you had since Empire, in the dim hope that some benign, future president of the US will fall in love with you and think you are "worth it", as they say in the makeup ads; might even make you a new US state, as it were! How cute and ironic would that be?
Rob
-
Don't let facts get in the way, but the UK exports are some 39% to Europe, and 11% to the USA.
As far as imports go, something like 48% is coming from Europe, and 7.5% is coming from the USA.
Looks like the UK needs Europe more than anybody else and the reverse is also true.
That's why Brexit was a bad plan, but apparently such is life and shit happens ...
Cheers,
Bart
I think Alan meant that UK will need USA more than USA will need UK, so they will be hoping to sell us chlorine chicken and ractopamine pork, as well as taking over the NHS.
-
That it worked tells you more than you need to know about the intelligence of the British masses, without whose blind assistance it would not have flown.
Simplistic and wrong. The brexit vote was 'won' by the most careful, devious and dubious bit of advertising the world has seen.
Few bexiters ever seriously expected to 'win', they just intended to stir things up a bit. They're now in a terrible hole trying to deflect any blame about their lack of a plan and the chaos soon to ensue if they do leave onto anyone else.
-
Simplistic and wrong. The brexit vote was 'won' by the most careful, devious and dubious bit of advertising the world has seen.
Few bexiters ever seriously expected to 'win', they just intended to stir things up a bit. They're now in a terrible hole trying to deflect any blame about their lack of a plan and the chaos soon to ensue if they do leave onto anyone else.
Simplistic, yes; wrong, no.
Sure it was clever advertising, but as with all ads they only work if the folks who see them buy into them. That's the reflection of the audience. An audience that takes its cues from social media, for crissakes, and from specifically socially aimed/targeted newspapers.
I can't quite understand why "just intended to stir things up a bit" makes any sense. Unless there is a focussed agenda, you don't spend shitloads of money just for the hell of it. Not in politics, where there is always an angle. Detonating a political atomic bomb is not the same thing as making a crowd in an airport, holding a few marches in the streets. Expectations of intended chaos - at the very least - are impossible to discount, and the display of cynicism by folks such as Boris are amazing: remember how he had two versions of a newspaper article prepared, quit or remain, right up to the last moment when he finally decided which camp to espouse? That's not stirring things up, that's jockeying for office. Then think of the Gove/Boris relationship if more internecine bloodletting is of interest.
I'm left wondering if the veiled bottom line has been to ruin Great Britain, break it up into little minor states, achieve personal political power, create supply monopolies for certain Brexit backers in the food and drinks industry or whether, indeed, we are simply dealing with a clique of very wealthy psychotics. Looking across the Atlantic makes me think that's no idle speculation; what can go down there can just as easily do so in the UK.
-
Europe might not be able to make a soft deal. However, they still want to sell their German autos, French wines, and other stuff to British buyers. So they have to make some accommodation. Of course, America will be in a stronger position to make a good deal with Britain as they'll need us more. And that might help us make a better trade deal with the rest of Europe. Everyone could benefit. :)
Where there is a winner there has to be a loser. No prizes fo guess who that will have to be, as you suggest.
Why would the UK seek that situation for itself?
One reason why the European model was working so well for us when inside the group: the playing field was understood and agreed, and all gained from it. Try to deal with a giant (the US), and you get what he deigns to toss your (little England) way. Anyone who ever ran a business knows where the power lies. As most surely does Mr T. He must be giving Mrs T. extra hugs to celebrate just how easily he has fooled so many people across the pond.
-
Sure it was clever advertising, but as with all ads they only work if the folks who see them buy into them.
You really haven't grasped the width and depth of what's happened with brexit.
I'm left wondering if the veiled bottom line has been to ruin Great Britain, break it up into little minor states, achieve personal political power, create supply monopolies for certain Brexit backers in the food and drinks industry or whether, indeed, we are simply dealing with a clique of very wealthy psychotics.
The bigger picture is seen when you look at the funding, it's not about breaking up the UK, that's just the consequential damage. It's more about damaging the EU and their economic and social power.
-
You really haven't grasped the width and depth of what's happened with brexit.The bigger picture is seen when you look at the funding, it's not about breaking up the UK, that's just the consequential damage. It's more about damaging the EU and their economic and social power.
If you're right about the ultimate goal, the it leaves just Russia, China and the US as possible gainers in a weaker Europe.
So why do we have home-grown people subscribe to that? Are we seeing Kim Philby all over again?
Rob
-
So why do we have home-grown people subscribe to that?
Because they will make huge amounts of money from it and they don't like the general European idea of doing what's best for most people.
-
Accommodations on all sides will help everyone.
-
Accommodations on all sides will help everyone.
Never Never Land.
Your guy wants to beat the rest into the mud. That's not trade, that's exported tyranny. He doesn't even try to hide it or be gracious about it: look at the banners and caps. It''s his ticket: fuck everybody else on the block.
Nice neighbour we got there, so when and where does your proposed accommodation begin? When the rest be in commercial genuflection?
Rob
-
Don't let facts get in the way, but the UK exports are some 39% to Europe, and 11% to the USA.
As far as imports go, something like 48% is coming from Europe, and 7.5% is coming from the USA.
Looks like the UK needs Europe more than anybody else and the reverse is also true.
That's why Brexit was a bad plan, but apparently such is life and shit happens ...
Cheers,
Bart
There was an article in the paper this weekend on the plight of Welsh sheep farmers who export most of their lamb to the EU. A hard Brexit puts them out of business. The US market for lamb won't make up for this.
-
Never Never Land.
Your guy wants to beat the rest into the mud. That's not trade, that's exported tyranny. He doesn't even try to hide it or be gracious about it: look at the banners and caps. It''s his ticket: fuck everybody else on the block.
Nice neighbour we got there, so when and where does your proposed accommodation begin? When the rest be in commercial genuflection?
Rob
Yes, Trump is a hard negotiator. And he'll use America's purchasing power to our advantage. But Europeans aren't Rubes. Give me a break. And, he's not stupid. He's not crazy. After all, didn't he make a deal with Mexico and Canada with a new trade agreement - USMCA replacing NAFTA?
-
There was an article in the paper this weekend on the plight of Welsh sheep farmers who export most of their lamb to the EU. A hard Brexit puts them out of business. The US market for lamb won't make up for this.
In the grander scheme of things, it will bring home the emotional kick in the testes felt by Australia and New Zealand, two countries some expect to feel eternally grateful to us in Britain...
You could not make this stuff up. Yet, somebody did, and sold it.
Rob
-
Yes, Trump is a hard negotiator. And he'll use America's purchasing power to our advantage. But Europeans aren't Rubes. Give me a break. And, he's not stupid. He's not crazy. After all, didn't he make a deal with Mexico and Canada with a new trade agreement - USMCA replacing NAFTA?
Ah, Alan, your shifting sands are an eternal refuge.
-
After all, didn't he make a deal with Mexico and Canada with a new trade agreement - USMCA replacing NAFTA?
He made a few changes around the edges. It is now bogged down in Senate committee and additional changes are being negotiated. It may never come to fruition, at least not in its current form. Big deal. Meanwhile, auto plants are shutting down and manufacturing in general continues to contract.
-
There was an article in the paper this weekend on the plight of Welsh sheep farmers who export most of their lamb to the EU. A hard Brexit puts them out of business. The US market for lamb won't make up for this.
Why wouldn't Europe continue to buy Welsh lamb? Isn't it tasty? They buy lamb from New Zealand and Australia and South America which aren't part of the EU. Why wouldn't they continue to buy from Wales? Don't the Welsh know how to trade and make deals? Are they Rubes too?
"EU imports account for 20% of the EU’s consumption. About 80% of EU imports of sheep meat originate in New Zealand followed by Australia and Mercosur countries."
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sheep-goats_en (https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sheep-goats_en)
-
Ah, Alan, your shifting sands are an eternal refuge.
I have no clue what you're talking about. Please write more plainly. I'm a simple man. :)
-
He made a few changes around the edges. It is now bogged down in Senate committee and additional changes are being negotiated. It may never come to fruition, at least not in its current form. Big deal. Meanwhile, auto plants are shutting down and manufacturing in general continues to contract.
So you just agreed with me against Rob. Rob said Trump was impossible to negotiate with. That he asks for too much. That he wants to bury everyone else. Yet you're saying the new NAFTA deal was not so onerous for Canada and Mexico. Only changes around the edges. So which is it? Is Trump terrible or maybe he's not so bad. You and ROb should get together to work out your mutual understandings about Trump.
-
So you just agreed with me against Rob.
You are delusional.
-
Why wouldn't Europe continue to buy Welsh lamb? Isn't it tasty?
Because of 40% tariffs.
-
Because of 40% tariffs.
So how does New Zealand, Australian and South American lamb get imported? Isn't there a 40% tariff on their lamb too? Meanwhile 80% of the imported lamb comes from these three areas outside the EU.
-
You are delusional.
There you go again. Whenever you run out of arguments or lose the point, you resort to name calling.
-
So how does New Zealand, Australian and South American lamb get imported? Isn't there a 40% tariff on their lamb too? Meanwhile 80% of the imported lamb comes from these three areas outside the EU.
Large scale cheaper production.
-
There you go again. Whenever you run out of arguments or lose the point, you resort to name calling.
Would it make you feel better if I said wildly mistaken instead of delusional?
-
Because of 40% tariffs.
Hence the jerk label 😉
-
. . . it leaves just Russia, China and the US as possible gainers in a weaker Europe.
So why do we have home-grown people subscribe to that? Are we seeing Kim Philby all over again?
Hmmm. Maybe that's why I have to keep fighting the urge to refer to BoJo as Boris Yeltsin. And I thought it was just a Freudian slipski. . . .
-
Because of 40% tariffs.
Whereas the EU has limited tariffs on imported sheep meat from NZ.
https://britishmeatindustry.org/industry/imports-exports/sheepmeat/
So price of lamb from UK goes up 40% in the EU, other suppliers don't change.
Also add in extra costs of proving compliance with EU standards on import into the EU and dealing with import processes.
-
Whereas the EU has limited tariffs on imported sheep meat from NZ.
https://britishmeatindustry.org/industry/imports-exports/sheepmeat/
So price of lamb from UK goes up 40% in the EU, other suppliers don't change.
Also add in extra costs of proving compliance with EU standards on import into the EU and dealing with import processes.
Two points:
1. Wales is 20 mile across the Channel from mainland Europe. Australia and NZ are 12000 miles away and South America is 5000 miles away. Welsh shipping, packaging, and freezer costs make them more competitive. If they can't compete with those others, maybe they should go out of business.
2. I've proposed in previous posts that GB quickly make a trade deal with America. I called it BATS. Then we together could negotiate better trade deals with the EU which would help Welsh lamb producers and American exporters as well. After all Europe wants to sell their cars to Britain and America and would be willing to make a deal to assure no interruption.
-
Hence the jerk label 😉
That's the tariff set by the EU. It protected Welsh farmers. Leave voters decided they didn't want that. Nothing to do with being a jerk.
-
2. I've proposed in previous posts that GB quickly make a trade deal with America. I called it BATS.
I'd call it bats as well.
-
That's the tariff set by the EU. It protected Welsh farmers. Leave voters decided they didn't want that. Nothing to do with being a jerk.
So Europeans have to pay 40% more for lamb because of the tariffs. A shrinking Euro. After all, 80% of imported lamb comes from outside the EU.
Also, how do those countries complete with Wales now with such high tariffs? Why are the European buyers being punished with extra high prices? It seems Trump learned about tariffs from Europe. :)
-
1. Wales is 20 mile across the Channel from mainland Europe. Australia and NZ are 12000 miles away and South America is 5000 miles away. Welsh shipping, packaging, and freezer costs make them more competitive. If they can't compete with those others, maybe they should go out of business.
Welsh lamb only becomes uneconomic in the EU, it's major export market, because of brexit and the subsequent tarrifs that will need to be imposed.
You really aren't following this at all.
-
... So price of lamb from UK goes up 40% in the EU, other suppliers don't change...
Hence the jerk label.
-
I'd call it bats as well.
I thought you'd appreciate the acronym. :)
Here's my previous post on it:
"...Here's an idea. You Brits and we Americans make a trade deal where there are no tariffs between us. Let's call it, eh, BATS - The British American Trade Settlement. Then you and we tell the EU they will be charged tariffs if they charge our members, Great Britain and America, any tariffs on our exports to them. In fact, we will double EU tariffs on their exports to our countries. Sort of what we're doing to China. What do you think the German auto manufacturers from Mercedes, BMW et al will tell Merkel? "Das Brits and das Americans are batty. You got to drop tariffs or ve go out of business." Walla! Now GB and the US are selling our goods to Europe with no tariffs. The Irish march in the street praising, "Long Live the Queen and all Her Little Grandchildren."
You see how that works."
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=129874.msg1122598#msg1122598 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=129874.msg1122598#msg1122598)
-
Alan, why are you so argumentative, without offering something more than assumptions, something of substance maybe?
How about you provide a link to an overview of the differences between the NAFTA deal and the proposed new deal. That would be more productive, and not take too much time to handle the off-topic subject, wouldn't you think?
One of the major points of Trump was to reduce the Trade-deficit, but that is not directly covered by the deal, the USA should produce more for its own consumption and buy less from others, but the other nations have no say in that. There also seems to be substantial pushback from the US Congress, so more homework needs to be done before claiming success.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, You totally missed my point. Maybe it's a language barrier. Rob said Trump is cruel, you can't negotiate deals with him. Meanwhile Trump made a trade deal with Canada and Mexico. So apparently he isn;t inflexible, cruel, or nuts. He'll make a trade deal with Britain too.
-
Hence the jerk label.
"hence" implies that there is a logical process. Which there clearly isn't.
-
Welsh lamb only becomes uneconomic in the EU, it's major export market, because of brexit and the subsequent tarrifs that will need to be imposed.
You really aren't following this at all.
Why is Welsh lamb uneconomic in Europe because of a 40% tariff that has to also be paid on lamb from New Zealand, Australia and South America?
That just makes an even playing field.
Now, if you're saying that Welsh farmers have gotten sloppy in their business practices because their products didn't have the 40% tariff before, and now will be uncompetitive because they lost the competitive edge, you might be right. So what they'll have to do is sharpen their business practices so they can compete with others like Australia and New Zealand. After all, nothing else sharpens a person's attention like the hangman's noose.
-
Wales is 20 mile across the Channel from mainland Europe.
You might want to check a map of the UK.
-
Why is Welsh lamb uneconomic in Europe because of a 40% tariff that has to also be paid on lamb from New Zealand, Australia and South America?
That just makes an even playing field.
No, because they already have tariff free agreements with the EU.
You really are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of a very complex issue.
-
"hence" implies that there is a logical process. Which there clearly isn't.
It all started with warnings about impeding food shortages, social unrest in the U.K., and recession even in the EU. With the EU clearly adopting the punitive path “We’ll show you, British mofos, what happens when someone wants to leave our hotel California,” as a deterrent for anyone else trying to leave the proto-socialist paradise. Hence the 40% tariffs and other stuff. There’s your logic.
-
No, because they already have tariff free agreements with the EU.
You really are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of a very complex issue.
So Britain will have to negotiate a similar arrangement. They could start by imposing a tariff on European cars. Watch how fast the EU drops the 40% tariff on Welsh meat.
-
No, because they already have tariff free agreements with the EU.
You really are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of a very complex issue.
You really have to get on with it. The train has left the station. Whining about Brexit isn't going to get you anywheres.
-
You really have to get on with it. The train has left the station. Whining about Brexit isn't going to get you anywheres.
The train has been trying to leave the station for three years rather unsuccessfully. We'll see if it makes it out on October 31st, and if so, what the consequences may be. I'd say the whining has just begun.
-
It all started with warnings about impeding food shortages, social unrest in the U.K., and recession even in the EU. With the EU clearly adopting the punitive path “We’ll show you, British mofos, what happens when someone wants to leave our hotel California,” as a deterrent for anyone else trying to leave the proto-socialist paradise. Hence the 40% tariffs and other stuff. There’s your logic.
The step you missed is that the UK CHOSE to move to that regime. The EU didn't do anything.
-
The train has been trying to leave the station for three years rather unsuccessfully. We'll see if it makes it out on October 31st, and if so, what the consequences may be. I'd say the whining has just begun.
I understand there are going to be tough times ahead. But complaining how bad it's going to be and throwing up your hands in anguish isn't going to help. GB is going to be faced with all sorts of trade issues with Europe. But trade is a two-way street. If Europe punishes GB, there will be retaliation. I think the EU understands that. If they don't, then a quick tariff on European goods sold in BG will wake them up.
-
Indeed. And an agreement has been drafted. It just hasn't been ratified because of UK politics.
Cheers,
Bart
Once GB exports go down, they'll wake up and do something.
-
The step you missed is that the UK CHOSE to move to that regime. The EU didn't do anything.
But they can choose how they are going to react: friendly or hostile.
-
Two points:
1. Wales is 20 mile across the Channel from mainland Europe.
You might want to check Google Maps, but maybe the mileage it shows is fake.
-
I understand there are going to be tough times ahead. But complaining how bad it's going to be and throwing up your hands in anguish isn't going to help. GB is going to be faced with all sorts of trade issues with Europe. But trade is a two-way street. If Europe punishes GB, there will be retaliation. I think the EU understands that. If they don't, then a quick tariff on European goods sold in BG will wake them up.
You are missing the main point. The EU is not retaliating against the UK, they UK is inflicting this pain themselves. they are leaving a customs union whose entry products will now have to be negotiated. I have seen very little in the press about how those negotiations are going (if they are going at all). The UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK. Look at the financial services industry that is already moving out of London. the EU equivalent of our FDA was headquartered in London is now in Amsterdam with several thousand high paying jobs gone. Manufacturing is leaving as well and I think the Nissan plant in the north of England may be closing as a result. This will go down in history as one of the great self-inflicted wounds ever.
-
I understand there are going to be tough times ahead. But complaining how bad it's going to be and throwing up your hands in anguish isn't going to help. GB is going to be faced with all sorts of trade issues with Europe. But trade is a two-way street. If Europe punishes GB, there will be retaliation. I think the EU understands that. If they don't, then a quick tariff on European goods sold in BG will wake them up.
Remind me. The upsides to the UK from Brexit are what exactly?
-
I have seen very little in the press about how those negotiations are going (if they are going at all).
Stalled and not happening.
-
Indeed. And an agreement has been drafted. It just hasn't been ratified because of UK politics.
It hasn't been ratified because a majority of the lower house of Parliament refused to endorse it. You can call that "UK politics" if you like; I prefer to call it representational democracy in action. There are very real, fundamental objections to the loss of sovereignty implied by the Northern Irish backstop. You might or might not agree with them, but your agreement isn't necessary for them to be valid.
Jeremy
-
But they can choose how they are going to react: friendly or hostile.
Which part of this is causing you a problem? They aren't acting friendly OR hostile. The UK chose to leave and be like other non-EU countries, so it has to accept the rules. If you leave the golf club, it means that you can no longer play golf on that course. Simple enough!
-
It hasn't been ratified because a majority of the lower house of Parliament refused to endorse it.
For those that haven't followed this issue properly, it's probably worth pointing out that the 'agreement' that wasn't acceptable to Parliament, wasn't a trade deal at all. It is just an agreement on what would happen on the day we leave and how existing commitments would be honoured, how borders would function, what sort of trade arrangements would exist whilst being re-negotiated, how citizens rights and travel would change, how disputes would be resolved etc etc.
-
Which part of this is causing you a problem? They aren't acting friendly OR hostile. The UK chose to leave and be like other non-EU countries, so it has to accept the rules. If you leave the golf club, it means that you can no longer play golf on that course. Simple enough!
Funny example. Let's see. You decide to leave your golf club mid-year, but you already paid your membership for the whole year. The club has two options: to tell you to f-off or to give you back a prorated fee. The former deters anyone else from leaving (punitive), the latter is fairer and incentivises new members to join. It is the club choice. Friendly or hostile.
-
Funny example. Let's see. You decide to leave your golf club mid-year, but you already paid your membership for the whole year. The club has two options: to tell you to f-off or to give you back a prorated fee. The former deters anyone else from leaving (punitive), the latter is fairer and incentivises new members to join. It is the club choice. Friendly or hostile.
Slobodan, as with all good clubs, they have a waiting list that is years long. Europe did not tell Britain to fuck off; Britain decided both to fuck off away from Europe and do a similar service for itself by doing so. It is a self-inflicted wound that in the military should get you court-martialed.
-
... Europe did not tell Britain to fuck off...
Nor I said that. I said after a club member decides to leave, the club has two options, one of which is to tell the member to f-off regarding his request for a prorated refund.
As in a divorce, it behooves both parties, even the one not guilty of any wrongdoing, to seek an amicable solution, rather than give most of their money to lawyers. It has been known that some would even torch the house and car just so the other side doesn't get it, even if that would mean a destruction of property for both or even jail for the perpetrator.
So, even if the EU is not guilty of anything, it still behooves it to handle the separation as friendly as possible, not causing wide-spread food and drug shortages and recession on both sides.
-
So, even if the EU is not guilty of anything, it still behooves it to handle the separation as friendly as possible, not causing wide-spread food and drug shortages and recession on both sides.
I'm sure the EU will be happy to sell as much food and medicine as the UK wants to buy. The delays will be at the UK end as they have to inspect the goods and collect tariffs, effectively raising prices and causing shortages for its own citizens. It is the UK shooting itself in the foot, a self-inflected injury. It's got nothing to do with the EU being vindictive.
-
You might want to check Google Maps, but maybe the mileage it shows is fake.
You're being petty and pedantic. I was comparing the difficulty between the minimal distance Wales has to ship their lamb to the continent vs. what Australia has to do halfway across the earth. I guess they didn't discuss this kind of nuance in college.
-
You're being petty and pedantic. I was comparing the difficulty between the minimal distance Wales has to ship their lamb to the continent vs. what Australia has to do halfway across the earth.
When accurate data exists, you should use it.
-
When accurate data exists, you should use it.
You're missing the forest through the trees. No one cares about a hundred miles. It's got nothing to do with my comparison.
-
You're missing the forest through the trees. No one cares about a hundred miles. It's got nothing to do with my comparison.
I'm not missing any forest or any tree, just pointing out the obvious.
-
Whatever. ::)
-
Whatever. ::)
Well now, that's a refreshing change of debating style!
:-)
-
Trump, Boris Johnson discuss Brexit, trade issues in Monday phone call
It seems Trump has been reading my posts:
"Great discussion with Prime Minister @BorisJohnson (https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) today. We talked about Brexit and how we can move rapidly on a US-UK free trade deal. I look forward to meeting with Boris this weekend, at the @G7 (https://twitter.com/G7?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) in France! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 19, 2019 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163600519467798529?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)"
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458020-trump-boris-johnson-discuss-brexit-trade-issues-in-monday-phone-call (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458020-trump-boris-johnson-discuss-brexit-trade-issues-in-monday-phone-call)
-
It seems Trump has been reading my posts:
Reminds me of the joke about the ant and the elephant.
-
Funny example. Let's see. You decide to leave your golf club mid-year, but you already paid your membership for the whole year. The club has two options: to tell you to f-off or to give you back a prorated fee. The former deters anyone else from leaving (punitive), the latter is fairer and incentivises new members to join. It is the club choice. Friendly or hostile.
However, that analogy does not have any resemblance to the actual situation, so there are no useful conclusions to be derived from considering it.
-
Trump, Boris Johnson discuss Brexit, trade issues in Monday phone call
It seems Trump has been reading my posts:
"Great discussion with Prime Minister @BorisJohnson (https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) today. We talked about Brexit and how we can move rapidly on a US-UK free trade deal. I look forward to meeting with Boris this weekend, at the @G7 (https://twitter.com/G7?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) in France! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 19, 2019 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163600519467798529?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)"
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458020-trump-boris-johnson-discuss-brexit-trade-issues-in-monday-phone-call (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458020-trump-boris-johnson-discuss-brexit-trade-issues-in-monday-phone-call)
How come when it comes to human influence on climate change you say we have to wait 50 years to find out what's going. Yet you seem to be awfully certain that UK will be better off not trading as part of EU but instead entering trade agreements with other countries independently. Why don't you need to wait 50 years to see how that works out?
-
How come when it comes to human influence on climate change you say we have to wait 50 years to find out what's going. Yet you seem to be awfully certain that UK will be better off not trading as part of EU but instead entering trade agreements with other countries independently. Why don't you need to wait 50 years to see how that works out?
Easy one: he's a dedicated follower of fashion the message from the little white house up on the hill. We have better hiils in Edinburgh.
:-)
-
How come when it comes to human influence on climate change you say we have to wait 50 years to find out what's going. Yet you seem to be awfully certain that UK will be better off not trading as part of EU but instead entering trade agreements with other countries independently. Why don't you need to wait 50 years to see how that works out?
I don;t think I said Brexit was better or easier. What I said or meant was it's time to move on. The train is moving out of the station. I'm offering up some suggestions that I believe would be helpful to both GB and the USA. They would help trade between our two countries. They would help break down EU trade barriers erected against both our countries once you leave the EU. If you have better solutions, fine, what are they?
-
I don;t think I said Brexit was better or easier. What I said or meant was it's time to move on. The train is moving out of the station. I'm offering up some suggestions that I believe would be helpful to both GB and the USA. They would help trade between our two countries. They would help break down EU trade barriers erected against both our countries once you leave the EU. If you have better solutions, fine, what are they?
Obvious answer is "don't leave" since right now we have no trade barriers with our biggest customers and suppliers, and we don't have to eat contaminated food. Simples.
-
Obvious answer is "don't leave" since right now we have no trade barriers with our biggest customers and suppliers, and we don't have to eat contaminated food. Simples.
Jeremy, My understanding is the train already left the station. There's no way to reverse it. It's a done deal. Time to move on.
-
However, that analogy does not have any resemblance to the actual situation, so there are no useful conclusions to be derived from considering it.
You brought the golf analogy into the discussion.
-
Obvious answer is "don't leave" ...
What stage of grief is that, again? Denial? You are still stuck in the first? Boy, you have a long way to go: anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Shall we brace for the next? 😉
-
My understanding is the train already left the station. There's no way to reverse it. It's a done deal.
Your understanding is wrong, again. Yet again you demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about. If anyone needs to move on here, it's not us, before commenting you really ought to have a better knowledge of what you're talking about.
-
Jeremy, My understanding is the train already left the station. There's no way to reverse it. It's a done deal. Time to move on.
That's not actually correct, though at this stage it looks likely.
-
What stage of grief is that, again? Denial? You are still stuck in the first? Boy, you have a long way to go: anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Shall we brace for the next? 😉
Alan asked if I have a better solution, and I provided one. Simple enough?
-
Alan asked if I have a better solution, and I provided one. Simple enough?
Whatever.
-
Your understanding is wrong, again. Yet again you demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about. If anyone needs to move on here, it's not us, before commenting you really ought to have a better knowledge of what you're talking about.
Ah, progress! At least you moved from “denial” to “anger” phase. ;D
-
Maybe Trump can buy Ireland instead of Greenland (would he even know the difference) and then Ireland can leave the EU, and voila! no hard border !!
-
Maybe Trump can buy Ireland instead of Greenland (would he even know the difference) and then Ireland can leave the EU, and voila! no hard border !!
Brilliant! And why not? There are already 5x as many Irish in the USA as in Ireland.
-
+1
He can then also get companies like Apple and Adobe to pay tax in the USA ...
Brilliant, again!
And with that extra cash his Mexican wall can be constructed from titanium, a beacon to American cultural excellence! Think of all the global warming effects getting hands on all that stuff will then allow him to deny!
:-)
-
+1
He can then also get companies like Apple and Adobe to pay tax in the USA ...
Trump's new tax bill encourages American companies to repatriate their cash earned overseas back to the USA. Apple promised to send money back and will pay $38 billion in additional US taxes to bring back $250 billion. This is great for American taxpayers (and voters) and will provide additional capital for investment and jobs in America.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16901936/apple-tax-bill-foreign-money-united-states
-
Trump's new tax bill encourages American companies to repatriate their cash earned overseas back to the USA. Apple promised to send money back and will pay $38 billion in additional US taxes to bring back $250 billion. This is great for American taxpayers (and voters) and will provide additional capital for investment and jobs in America.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16901936/apple-tax-bill-foreign-money-united-states
Alan, Alan, continuity of thought is essential: if he brings those ginormous units back to the homeland to pay taxes they deem acceptable, why on Earth will he see advantages in buying Éire? He already has all the golf outlets he needs in that neck of the woods. Remove the tax benefits of the place to big business and it will revert to farming. Period. And farming is what's going to be crucified if the borders return.
On the other hand, if his view is really long-term, he may be plotting to buy the entire archipelago.
Hmmm... does that mean I could order genuine cowboy boots without paying import duty?
-
Alan, Alan, continuity of thought is essential: if he brings those ginormous units back to the homeland to pay taxes they deem acceptable, why on Earth will he see advantages in buying Éire? He already has all the golf outlets he needs in that neck of the woods. Remove the tax benefits of the place to big business and it will revert to farming. Period. And farming is what's going to be crucified if the borders return.
On the other hand, if his view is really long-term, he may be plotting to buy the entire archipelago.
Hmmm... does that mean I could order genuine cowboy boots without paying import duty?
...and saddles too.
-
...and saddles too.
Those would be a step too far. The only horse I know, sort of, has probably never worm one of those devices, but I can see them doing good business in Soho, London. Saddles, not horses, but you never know...
-
Some good news for Rob:
"Brexit: What are EU countries doing to prepare for no deal?"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46064836
There are many pensioners among the UK nationals in Spain. The Spanish measures include healthcare provisions, stating that the current conditions will continue – provided the UK government reciprocates for Spaniards living in the UK.
-
Some good news for Rob:
"Brexit: What are EU countries doing to prepare for no deal?"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46064836
The bad news is: provided the UK government reciprocates for Spaniards living in the UK
(I think the Germans have committed to allowing Brits to continue to live there regardless)
-
Mrs May had pretty much promised that to all Europeans already living in Britain. I was wondering if the Europeans would reciprocate. Now, I'm wondering if Big Bad Boris will repudiate all that she had promised.
There is the point that with so many expat Brits living in Spain, an exodus would certainly impact a lot of businesses. On the other hand, an exodus usually requires offloading some property, which is currently very, very hard to do. It could give some Spanish nationals a chance to buy good stuff cheaply.
Bad times...
-
Now, I'm wondering if Big Bad Boris will repudiate all that she had promised.
Does he have any relatives or good buddies in said situation?
-
Reciprocal expat arrangements:
That's a good sign for reciprocal trade deals.
-
I love this guy. Boris Johnson, the honey badger ;D
-
I love this guy. Boris Johnson, the honey badger ;D
Surprising image telling me one or more of several things:
1. an unbelievably poorly educated guy;
2. could be trying to appear uncouth even though he may not be - widen his catchment area;
3. is being intentionally incredibly offensive to his host.
If he did that in any establishment I owned, I'd have him thrown out on his miserable ass.
-
widen his catchment area;
;D
-
Comic relief:
https://www.indy100.com/article/boris-johnson-monty-python-hilarious-mashup-video-9070151
Cheers,
Bart
I was expecting the Upper Class Twit of the Year skit.
-
I was expecting the Upper Class Twit of the Year skit.
I was expecting the Spanish Inquisition. No, wait a sec - I WASN'T expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
-
Surprising image telling me one or more of several things:
1. an unbelievably poorly educated guy;
2. could be trying to appear uncouth even though he may not be - widen his catchment area;
3. is being intentionally incredibly offensive to his host.
If he did that in any establishment I owned, I'd have him thrown out on his miserable ass.
1. He has an upper second-class degree in Classics from Oxford. It's not Cambridge, of course, but it's not a bad place to learn.
2. Who knows?
3. Read this (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49440952). The BBC is certainly no friend of his, and misses no opportunity to snipe. And yet...
As you're British, Rob, an ass is a donkey. I think you mean "arse".
Jeremy
-
1. He has an upper second-class degree in Classics from Oxford. It's not Cambridge, of course, but it's not a bad place to learn.
Presidential advisor, Jared Kushner, has a degree from Harvard. That alone doesn't make him qualified to bring peace to the Middle East or accomplish the other tasks in his portfolio.
-
Having a degree in Classics means nothing as a chief executive officer. What is his experiences regarding running things? What has he done besides being a politician?
-
Having a degree in Classics means nothing as a chief executive officer. What is his experiences regarding running things? What has he done besides being a politician?
Err. He was on a TV comedy show. He was a journalist making up fake stories in Brussels. In all these positions he was an unscrupulous liar. You tell me if that makes him qualified to be PM.
-
Err. He was on a TV comedy show. He was a journalist making up fake stories in Brussels. In all these positions he was an unscrupulous liar. You tell me if that makes him qualified to be PM.
I don't really know the guy. What I do know is he needs a new barber. 😏
-
I don't really know the guy. What I do know is he needs a new barber. 😏
That's part of his "rebel" image, same as Trump's comb-over.
-
1. He has an upper second-class degree in Classics from Oxford. It's not Cambridge, of course, but it's not a bad place to learn.
2. Who knows?
3. Read this (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49440952). The BBC is certainly no friend of his, and misses no opportunity to snipe. And yet...
As you're British, Rob, an ass is a donkey. I think you mean "arse".
Jeremy
I did, but I don't like using that particular word.
Regarding his degree: degrees have very little bearing on bearing. I have seen a waiter in a simple local bar tell off a customer for doing that with his feet. Regarding Oxbridge: my granddaughter and her debating partner (another female student) won the mootings thing a few years ago, beating all the other university debating teams in Britain. So there you go: Glasgow can do better than the rest. They received their awards up at Buck House...
It happened to me once early on in the career (the feet, not the award): we had a party at home and one of the guys put his feet up on a coffee table. He never came back. It's offensive, whether or not the person doing it knows.
Anyway, as joke or otherwise, he should never have gone through the motion; reveals his lack of awareness of the art of photographers and the constant guard one in his position should maintain.
Rob
-
I was expecting the Spanish Inquisition. No, wait a sec - I WASN'T expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
Nobody was expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
-
The "Special Relationship"
He was on a TV comedy show. He was a journalist making up fake stories in Brussels. In all these positions he was an unscrupulous liar. You tell me if that makes him qualified to be PM.
He was on a TV reality show. He was a wannabe elected official making up fake stories about his predecessor. In all these positions he was an unscrupulous liar. You tell me if that makes him qualified to be president.
-
... a degree from Harvard. That alone doesn't make him qualified to bring peace to the Middle East or accomplish the other tasks in his portfolio.
But being a bartender does?
-
But being a bartender does?
Hurray for populism! I mean, you can sit down and have a beer with her. Non-elitist. Woman of the people. All that nonsense. ;D
-
You guys are ridiculous with those "not qualified" claims. There are only three things needed to qualify for a U.S. President (and even less for Congress): being natural born citizen, a resident for 14 years, and older than 35. That's it. The rest is up to voters.
-
... you can sit down and have a beer with her...
I choose my beer company carefully. You qualify. She can pour us a beer though.
-
I choose my beer company carefully. You qualify. She can pour us a beer though.
I don't know whether to be appreciative your opinion of me, or offended by your opinion of the woman who you apparently think is representative of my views :D
-
Presidential advisor, Jared Kushner, has a degree from Harvard. That alone doesn't make him qualified to bring peace to the Middle East or accomplish the other tasks in his portfolio.
Alan, if you read a post before you respond to it, it's at least conceivable that your reply will have some degree of relevance.
Bringing peace to the Middle East has no bearing on either Rob's or my comment. Johnson's degree from the UK's second-best university does, however, suggest that "an unbelievably poorly educated guy" is wide of the mark, which is the point I was making.
Jeremy
-
Not only he is highly educated, he has an impeccable sense of the comedy of absurd, typically British. My idol. Who else would bring tea to the press camping in front is his house, wearing only what appears to be colorful boxers (or at least pajamas). Priceless :D
-
Not only he is highly educated, he has an impeccable sense of the comedy of absurd, typically British. My idol. Who else would bring tea to the press camping in front is his house, wearing only what appears to be colorful boxers (or at least pajamas). Priceless :D
Yep, the absolute epitome of what makes a great Prime Minister.
Brexit is a laughing matter; we are all falling down in happy tears of laughter at the thought of the new era of secondary - so unimportant - collateral austerity it promises on top of what exists.
At least I got my eyes done before the mother could turn that into a further comedy spot of need outpacing ability to buy.
Incidentally, I find it extraordinary that you manage to equate an advanced education with common sense.
Rob
-
the UK's second-best university
I think you overestimate Imperial.
-
Alan, if you read a post before you respond to it, it's at least conceivable that your reply will have some degree of relevance.
Bringing peace to the Middle East has no bearing on either Rob's or my comment. Johnson's degree from the UK's second-best university does, however, suggest that "an unbelievably poorly educated guy" is wide of the mark, which is the point I was making.
Jeremy
I did read the post and my response still stands. It matters not how highly ranked a university is, all rankings are subjective and just because one has an Oxbridge degree or two should not be any guage of a person's worth. Your judgement that Johnson is not poorly educated is nothing more than a value judgement as well. How do you know whether he is or is not poorly educated. Certainly his actions point to the latter.
-
Having a degree doesn;t mean you have any common sense. Living in an ivory tower protected by tenure does not give you the same skills required to be a leader who commands and manages things in conflicting and challenging times.
-
Having a degree doesn;t mean you have any common sense. Living in an ivory tower protected by tenure does not give you the same skills required to be a leader who commands and manages things in conflicting and challenging times.
Yes; you took the words right out of my post mouth.
:-)
-
tenure
Hahaha!!
-
Yes; you took the words right out of my post mouth.
Alan had Obama in mind.
-
Any professor.
-
Here's a fun short film (12 min) about Brexit border problems, https://vimeo.com/324816477 (https://vimeo.com/324816477). :)
-
Alan had Obama in mind.
Then you have personal doubts that it, his mind, is broad enough to accommodate more than one idea at a time?
Eh la bas!
;-)
-
Then you have personal doubts that it, his mind, is broad enough to accommodate more than one idea at a time?...
No, I do not. Alan’s mind is quite ok, and much better than some other participants’.
-
No, I do not. Alan’s mind is quite ok, and much better than some other participants’.
Interesting; so the clarification was to clarify for whom?
:-)
-
Alan had Obama in mind.
Obama, Warren, lots of politicians.
-
Can Parliament still stop Brexit? What's the point of all this and what does it mean?
"Boris Johnson Seeks to Stifle Brexit Opposition With Surprise Parliamentary Delay"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/world/europe/boris-johnson-brexit-parliament.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/world/europe/boris-johnson-brexit-parliament.html)
-
Can Parliament still stop Brexit? What's the point of all this and what does it mean?
"Boris Johnson Seeks to Stifle Brexit Opposition With Surprise Parliamentary Delay"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/world/europe/boris-johnson-brexit-parliament.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/world/europe/boris-johnson-brexit-parliament.html)
It means that the time available for Parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit (for which there is no mandate at all) has been considerably reduced, since "leave, come what may" is the legal default to happen on Oct 31.
What it means beyond that is that the PM is behaving like a dictator, preventing scrutiny of and objection to his projects by the elected representatives of the people. It means that there is a coup d'etat by a wealthy clique of Eton old boys who are using non-democratic tactics to their own benefit. I don't think even Trump would manage to do this - perhaps as a result of the Constitution rather than any restraint or appreciation of democracy.
-
... What it means beyond that is that the PM is behaving like a dictator, preventing scrutiny of and objection to his projects by the elected representatives of the people. It means that there is a coup d'etat by a wealthy clique of Eton old boys who are using non-democratic tactics to their own benefit...
As long as his moves are legal, i.e., envisaged by the British system, not someone's personal ideas what democracy is, it is democratic.
P.S. Those "elected representatives of the people" could not find a way out of a paper bag in the last three years, so...
-
It means that the time available for Parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit (for which there is no mandate at all) has been considerably reduced, since "leave, come what may" is the legal default to happen on Oct 31.
What it means beyond that is that the PM is behaving like a dictator, preventing scrutiny of and objection to his projects by the elected representatives of the people. It means that there is a coup d'etat by a wealthy clique of Eton old boys who are using non-democratic tactics to their own benefit. I don't think even Trump would manage to do this - perhaps as a result of the Constitution rather than any restraint or appreciation of democracy.
The US Constitution set it up so that the Executive Branch of government run by the President and the Legislative Branch run by Congress, were co-equal branches. The founders wanted divided government; a separation of powers that would weaken central government. A weaker central government would be less likely to interfere in the people's freedoms. Here's a good essay on divided government compared to parliamentary government where the powers are co-joined. I'm in favor of a separate party in control of Congress and the other the executive. Gridlock is good. Less stupid laws get passed. Politicians cause less trouble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government_in_the_United_States)
Getting back to Brexit, can parliament still stop it?
-
As long as his moves are legal, i.e., envisaged by the British system, not someone's personal ideas what democracy is, it is democratic.
P.S. Those "elected representatives of the people" could not find a way out of a paper bag in the last three years, so...
Why did parliament disapprove May's Brexit agreement three times?
-
As long as his moves are legal, i.e., envisaged by the British system, not someone's personal ideas what democracy is, it is democratic.
P.S. Those "elected representatives of the people" could not find a way out of a paper bag in the last three years, so...
The latest head honcho was not elected by the people; he was selected as visibly most radical (and funny enough to charm the populace and bring about total withdrawal) by the inner sanctum of the Conservative Party who then had it rubber-stamped by the rest of the sheep on pain of death or, worse, expulsion from their chosen career path.
As for the move being envisaged by the British system: I doubt that winning by purposely forcing Parliament to run out of time is an accepted way of doing politics in the land formerly known as Great Britain or, if you rather, the United Kingdom.
It is, of course, a great object lesson for all the other mini-tyrants and/or dictators around the world to study, and from which to learn. Or was it the other way around?
-
The latest head honcho was not elected by the people...
Neither is any other previous British PM.
On a side note, is the Queen also a part of that "tyrants/dictators of the world, unite" conspiracy?
-
Parliament had years to vote down Brexit. To complain they don;t have another week or two to do it seems strangely petty. Who are they kidding? The Queen probably agreed with the PM to shut down Parliament because she's just as tired as everyone else about this thing and just wants to get on with it. I think someone heard her mumbling, "Enough already. I don't have that many more years."
-
Neither is any other previous British PM.
...
You mean their system is worse than our electoral system? :)
-
Maybe the people are not well informed enough to make a balanced decision about whether someone has the capabilities to do the job, and "the system" is fully aware of that problem? It could reduce the risk of a populist getting more power than is smart for a nation.
A populist getting *any* degree of power is generally bad for a nation...
-
Maybe the people are not well informed enough to make a balanced decision about whether someone has the capabilities to do the job, and "the system" is fully aware of that problem? It could reduce the risk of a populist getting more power than is smart for a nation.
It didn't seem to work in Britain. 🤔
-
A populist getting *any* degree of power is generally bad for a nation...
A populist is someone who does what populus (people) want. Seems like a definition of democracy to me, no?
-
Which part of the populus?
The majority.
-
... It is, of course, a great object lesson for all the other mini-tyrants and/or dictators around the world to study, and from which to learn. Or was it the other way around?
Rob,
I think I found a solution for you, a defense from all those mofos:
;)
-
Neither is any other previous British PM.
In theory, but its very rare for a PM not to have stood for election as the leader of the party and hence the PM designate. Incidentally when a Labour PM was not elected as such Johnson went on a rant about how disgraceful it was. One rule for the plebs and another for the Estonians.
-
In theory, but it's very rare for a PM not to have stood for election as the leader of the party and hence the PM designate....
Correct. However, there is a long-standing procedure in place when a PM resigns, and it is not to call a general election, but to let the party decide on the replacement. Nothing new or unusual here.
-
Why did parliament disapprove May's Brexit agreement three times?
A variety of reasons - for the right it was largely because the agreement kept us too close to Europe eg part of the Customs Union until such time as an arrangement in Ireland could be worked out ( the so-called backstop). For the left it was because we would be too far away from the EU with consequences for business and jobs. That is a simplification of course but the essence is there.
-
Correct. However, there is a long-standing procedure in place when a PM resigns, and it is not to call a general election, but to let the party decide on the replacement. Nothing new or unusual here.
Also correct. But as I mentioned, Johnson complained very loudly about it when Labour did it. Hypocrite!!
-
And that means for the minority, what?
The minority has to suck it up.
-
... Hypocrite!!
Politician!
-
Parliament had years to vote down Brexit. To complain they don;t have another week or two to do it seems strangely petty. Who are they kidding?
You are partly correct. The reason Parliament didn't vote down Brexit, or didn't get a version of an agreement that they couid agree to, was that when the chips were down Conservative MPs voted according to Party instructions rather than according to the good of the country, so they gave May the excuse to carry N with her unworkable plan.
-
... Conservative MPs voted according to Party instructions rather than according to the good of the country...
Defined how? I thought the populus already voted 51/49 that "the good of the country" is to leave?
-
Defined how? I thought the populus already voted 51/49 that "the good of the country" is to leave?
The good of the country as they saw it. Many MPs agreed that "no deal" would be a disaster for the country but they still enabled it.
A very small majority voted to leave but there was no statement on how.
-
A populist is someone who does what populus (people) want. Seems like a definition of democracy to me, no?
No.
But Hamilton argues it as well as I could. Maybe even better. ;). Read the whole thing.
"Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves." (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-03-02-0314)
-
Exactly. The history of the French Revolution says it all.
That principle is why the United States has a Constitutional Republic instead of a democracy.
-
And that means for the minority, what?
Elections have consequences.
-
You are partly correct. The reason Parliament didn't vote down Brexit, or didn't get a version of an agreement that they couid agree to, was that when the chips were down Conservative MPs voted according to Party instructions rather than according to the good of the country, so they gave May the excuse to carry N with her unworkable plan.
Wouldn't half a loaf be better than no loaf at all?
-
Wouldn't half a loaf be better than no loaf at all?
Not sure what you're referring to :-)
-
Exactly. The history of the French Revolution says it all.
That principle is why the United States has a Constitutional Republic instead of a democracy.
It's why we have an electoral college electing the president and why the original Constitution Had State legislatures selecting the two senators from their state. It was only in the 20th century that senators were elected by popular vote do to a change in the Constitution.
-
... the majority voted against or didn't vote at all...
Haha... that is new definition of democracy. How did you come up with that? You "know" how those who didn't vote would have voted!? You better get a job as a political consultant for aspiring candidates, given your clairvoyant and mind-reading skills.
Use it or lose it.
-
Not sure what you're referring to :-)
Neithet side got all of what they wanted in May's 2 agreements with the EU. If they had agreed thoughon one of them they would at least have gotten something of what they wanted. Now with a hard brexit they get nothing of anything.
-
Haha... that is new definition of democracy. How did you come up with that? You "know" how those who didn't vote would have voted!? You better get a job as a political consultant for aspiring candidates, given your clairvoyant and mind-reading skills.
Use it or lose it.
That's not what he said, is it?
The majority of voters voted for Brexit, and to quote someone or other, we need to make sure they get it, good and hard. It's a minor consolation to me that a lot of the Brexit supporters will pay for it with their jobs.
-
And as a result, a minority of the populus dictates their will-of-the-day to the majority.
In the UK, it was a minority of the populus that does the same. Some voted for Brexit, and the majority voted against or didn't vote at all. And now the majority must "suck it up".
I'll have to see if I can run it down, Bart. There was an interesting post, I think on Facebook, about that, showing that if we had a straight democracy, New York and California would drive the whole country. Looking at where they've been driving themselves that would mean the end of the United States. You guys would be on your own. Heaven forfend.
-
Neithet side got all of what they wanted in May's 2 agreements with the EU. If they had agreed thoughon one of them they would at least have gotten something of what they wanted. Now with a hard brexit they get nothing of anything.
Oh, I see, yes. Well, the right wing get what they wanted. They are now saying "the public voted for Brexit so we can't delay any more" - funny that they didn't seem to care about that when voting down May's WA.
-
No...
Where are we? In kindergarten? We are now debating the dawn of democracy, where the majority could potentially (or really) slaughter the minority after an election? Or are we talking about modern times where there are ample constitutional and legal protections for those who lose an election?
-
I don't pretend to know how they voted, but you apparently assume that 50% or more of the non-voters would have voted in favor of leaving ... Talk about clairvoyant skills.
I do not assume anything. Those who could, but didn't vote, do not matter. Use it or lose it.
-
No.
But Hamilton argues it as well as I could. Maybe even better. ;). Read the whole thing.
"Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves." (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-03-02-0314)
The recent the whole Amazon is burning Fiasco is a perfect example of that. If the world could they would have strung up the president of Brazil. Yet most of it was a lot of hyperventilation and exaggeration. Whole Amazon wasn't on fire. The lungs of the world will not be destroyed. But it points out to an important principle that popular opinion can become hysterical. The founders knew this and why they Limited the Senate and the presidency to the Electoral College. Passions can become very dangerous. People are dangerous.
-
That's not what he said, is it?...
It is:
... the majority voted against...
-
Could Parliament legally reject brexit? Would they do it?
-
Could Parliament legally reject brexit? Would they do it?
Yes. No.
:-)
-
Could Parliament legally reject brexit? Would they do it?
Sure they could. The (popular) vote was not binding.
-
Yes. No.
:-)
Damn, you beat me in brevity ;)
Which brings me to an anecdote from my career. I almost lost my job for answering a longish 3-part business inquiry from headquarters with:
1. Yes
2. No
3. God knows
I swear the answers were absolutely correct.
:)
-
The recent the whole Amazon is burning Fiasco is a perfect example of that. If the world could they would have strung up the president of Brazil. Yet most of it was a lot of hyperventilation and exaggeration. Whole Amazon wasn't on fire. The lungs of the world will not be destroyed. But it points out to an important principle that popular opinion can become hysterical. The founders knew this and why they Limited the Senate and the presidency to the Electoral College. Passions can become very dangerous. People are dangerous.
Sure. But let's not forget that Bolsonaro was elected by the same ignorant passions. I'm not sure who comes out ahead there.
-
Where are we? In kindergarten? We are now debating the dawn of democracy, where the majority could potentially (or really) slaughter the minority after an election? Or are we talking about modern times where there are ample constitutional and legal protections for those who lose an election?
Just yesterday you were trying to tell me that a newspaper columnist was on the verge of throwing you in the Gulag. :)
-
I don't pretend to know how they voted, but you apparently assume that 50% or more of the non-voters would have voted in favor of leaving ... Talk about clairvoyant skills.
The non-voters opinions don't matter. They told us so by not voting.
If you don't value your opinion enough to get out and vote, or are not industrious enough to do so, then what you think is irrelevant.
I have no horse in this race and could care less one way or the other with Brexit, but the fact is voting is your civic duty. If you dont perform your civic duty, dont complain to me when things dont go your way.
-
Whole Amazon wasn't on fire.
And nobody said it was, no matter how many times you repeat it.
-
That's not a quote, it's a partial quote. Typical Slobodan, misrepresenting the truth.
I said this:
Oh, for God's sake, for the second time today I have to ask are we in kindergarten! Your whole quote simply confirms what I said you meant: that if non-voting block is added to the minority who voted against, the minority would become majority.
So, either your claim that "the majority voted against" is an outright lie, or it becomes "majority" only if you add non-voters to it.
-
Damn, you beat me in brevity ;)
Which brings me to an anecdote from my career. I almost lost my job for answering a longish 3-part business inquiry from headquarters with:
1. Yes
2. No
3. God knows
I swear the answers were absolutely correct.
:)
I wish I could get answers like this from the art directors I work with sometimes.
Me, "Do we want to bring in a prop stylist?" "... Well, you know, the room really does need to be styled, and ... umm ... some additional props would be good, but, well, do you think it could work out with what we have, and, like, ..." Me, "do we have the additional $4K to $5K in the budget for a prop stylist? "Well, umm, it could be nice, but ..."
Me, "what color pillows should we source?" "How about like blue." Me, "what shade of blue, navy blue, sky blue, cerulean blue?" "I dont know, just something blue, like not too light but not too dark."
-
I don't pretend to know how they voted, but you apparently assume that 50% or more of the non-voters would have voted in favor of leaving ... Talk about clairvoyant skills.
No clairvoyance involved. There's a HUGE amount of credible polling data from before and after 2016 to support the fact that the majority of the UK don't support leaving the EU.
The repeated polling before the referendum suggested that it was a 'done deal' to remain in the EU, so there was a huge amount of complacency about the result. In turn that meant that many of those that didn't appreciate the difference between projected opinion and actual votes cast failed to take part and were then surprised when the result wasn't what had been predicted.
The really devious part is the saturation, illegally funded and highly targeted advertising that managed to motivate a gullible few to vote and make the tiny swing to leave.
-
... There's a HUGE amount of credible polling data from before and after 2016 to support the fact that the majority of the UK don't support leaving the EU...
Based on the polling data, and with a 98% certainty, we in the US are now living under a Clinton presidency.
-
Yes. No.
:-)
If the majority feel brexit is so bad why don't they just vote it down?
-
If the majority feel brexit is so bad why don't they just vote it down?
Politicians. Self before party before country.
-
But I'm missing something here. If the majority of the people no longer want brexit, wouldn't the politicians have something to gain by voting it down?
-
In theory, but its very rare for a PM not to have stood for election as the leader of the party and hence the PM designate. Incidentally when a Labour PM was not elected as such Johnson went on a rant about how disgraceful it was. One rule for the plebs and another for the Estonians.
It's not so rare: Johnson is the fifth in as many decades, following Callaghan, Major, Brown and May.
I think Johnson, like Darzi, is British.
Jeremy
-
It looks like my president is jumping into the ring to help gum up the works. Hopefully he'll be kinder to Great Britain then he is to Puerto Rico.
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiECVfBrXPSth7cHEiDgFX9DUqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
-
And as a result, a minority of the populus dictates their will-of-the-day to the majority.
Bart, check this out.
-
Thanks Russ, but the electoral college is not the populus. It's a weighted average.
Bart, I don't know whether or not you've ever spent any time in the U.S., or traveled in our country, but unlike the Netherlands the United States is a large country whose population is diffuse in terms of occupations, attitudes, etc. To allow a monolithic culture such as the culture of New York to control the entire country not only would be absurd, it undoubtedly would lead to a revolution. I'm not sure what you mean when you call the product of the electoral college a "weighted average." I've worked with statistics enough that I might dispute that moniker if I understood what you mean by it. But what the electoral college is is a method of electing a president of all the people, not just the people of a population concentration. Notice that the electoral college isn't used to elect senators or members of the house. Individual states do that, pretty much by their own rules, but the president is a different matter. The president has to represent all the people, not just the people of a small region.
The people who wrote the Constitution knew what they were about, and the result has been the most successful country in the history of the world.
-
Bart, I don't know whether or not you've ever spent any time in the U.S., or traveled in our country, but unlike the Netherlands the United States is a large country whose population is diffuse in terms of occupations, attitudes, etc. To allow a monolithic culture such as the culture of New York to control the entire country not only would be absurd, it undoubtedly would lead to a revolution. I'm not sure what you mean when you call the product of the electoral college a "weighted average." I've worked with statistics enough that I might dispute that moniker if I understood what you mean by it. But what the electoral college is is a method of electing a president of all the people, not just the people of a population concentration. Notice that the electoral college isn't used to elect senators or members of the house. Individual states do that, pretty much by their own rules, but the president is a different matter. The president has to represent all the people, not just the people of a small region.
The people who wrote the Constitution knew what they were about, and the result has been the most successful country in the history of the world.
Hey. Wait a minute. I'm a New Yorker. So is Trump. I resent that compliment. >:(
-
The usual result of populism, everybody loses.
Isn't being against populism an elitist attitude? After all, the word populism refers to just that. The regular people as opposed to the elite who think they should run everything and have the only "truth" when it comes to governmental control. In any case, I see Saldini the populist may be out of a job. Maybe the British could hire him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#In_the_United_States
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/world/europe/italy-government-salvini.html
-
Neither is any other previous British PM.
On a side note, is the Queen also a part of that "tyrants/dictators of the world, unite" conspiracy?
In normal times, a PM already heads a government going into an election. When the populace votes, it is usually voting for the figurehead it thinks best represents their ideals. The other parties have their leaders in that spotlit position too.
The Queen, poor dear, has no politicsl power worth squat. In effect, she's hostage to a charade.
-
What is a discussion of the U.S. Electoral College doing in a thread about Brexit?
Anyway, in an effort to demystify the reason for this recondite provision of the U.S. Constitution, here are a few observations by the friendly folks who invented the concept.
The provision for an Electoral College, like almost every other significant part of the Constitution, was the product of considerable debate and eventual compromise. The participants in the 18th Century constitutional convention discussed various options, and essentially concluded that none was perfect: among the alternatives suggested and ultimately rejected were selection of a president ("the executive") by the national legislature, similarly to having a prime minister for a parliamentary majority organize a government in a parliamentary model; appointment by a majority of the governors of the respective states; and direct election by those eligible to vote in the various states.
As James Wilson of Pennsylvania put it, "[t]his subject has greatly divided the House, and will also divide people out of doors. It is in truth the most difficult of all on which we have had to decide."
The issue was referred to a committee, which reported back on September 4, 1787, and recommended that
Each State shall appoint in such manner as its Legislature may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and members of the House of Representatives, to which the State may be entitled in the Legislature.
Gouverneur Morris of New York summarized the reasoning behind the concept that wound up in the proposed constitution, subsequently ratified by the states, which established the new national government:
Mr. Govr. Morris said he would give the reasons of the Committee and his own. The 1st. was the danger of intrigue & faction if the appointmt. should be made by the Legislature. 2 the inconveniency of an ineligibility required by that mode in order to lessen its evils. 3 The difficulty of establishing a Court of Impeachments, other than the Senate which would not be so proper for the trial nor the other branch for the impeachment of the President, if appointed by the Legislature, 4. No body had appeared to be satisfied with an appointment by the Legislature. 5. Many were anxious even for an immediate choice by the people— 6— the indispensable necessity of making the Executive independent of the Legislature. — As the Electors would vote at the same time throughout the U. S. and at so great a distance from each other, the great evil of cabal was avoided. It would be impossible also to corrupt them.
At various times, the existence of the Electoral College has been perceived to favor or disadvantage different parts of the country, depending on the politics of the moment. There has never been a national consensus on the desirability of eliminating it in favor of direct election of a president, despite a few occasions when its operation resulted in the election of a president who received less than a plurality of the popular vote.
In any event, the U.S. Constitution is structurally difficult to amend: either a new constitutional convention must be convened, which has never happened, or both the House of Representatives and the Senate must vote on the same amendment language by two-thirds majorities followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of the 50 states. This has only happened 27 times, and the first ten amendments were added just a few years after the Constitution was initially adopted in order to reinforce that certain governmental authorities were beyond the purview of the national Congress and, in some cases, even of the state legislatures.
(By the way, for those who may be interested, it is possible to follow the proceedings of the U.S. constitutional convention on a day-by-day basis thanks to a detailed diary written by James Madison (https://www.consource.org/library/?collections=james-madisons-notes-of-the-constitutional-convention), a delegate to the convention from Virginia and later the third president of the United States.)
-
In normal times, a PM already heads a government going into an election. When the populace votes, it is usually voting for the figurehead it thinks best represents their ideals. The other parties have their leaders in that spotlit position too.
The Queen, poor dear, has no politicsl power worth squat. In effect, she's hostage to a charade.
Well it is odd in this modern age to discuss democracy and monarchy in the same sentence, wouldn't you think? What kind of power would you give her and expect to maintain any semblance of democracy? We Americans, for sure, would not want to deal with the poor dear with the authority of let's say King George III. We had enough of him and his General Cornwallis and the two Howe brothers in 1776 and don;t need to go through that again. :)
-
[/quote]
In normal times, a PM already heads a government going into an election...
As Jeremy noted:
... Johnson is the fifth in as many decades, following Callaghan, Major, Brown and May.
-
The Queen, poor dear, has no politics[a]l power worth squat.
"Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl,
"But she doesn't have a lot to say
"Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl
"But she changes from day to day. . . . "
— Paul McCartney, 1969
-
As Jeremy noted:
... Johnson is the fifth in as many decades, following Callaghan, Major, Brown and May.
Which doesn't alter the facts, foremost being that they were not the heads of power for whom the vox pop voted.
And in this case, what has occurred, if you have noticed it, folks, is that we have had foisted upon us a cynic who, before the Brexit vote, had written two newspaper articles, one for and the other against Brexit, to be published as suites the agenda. In other words, a foot in either camp, depending on which would gain him most personal popularity and power in the days, months to come. In essence, a man of no convictions beyond that of self-promotion. And that the person now in charge of the fate of Britain. A person representing a small goup of wealthy, extreme nationalist Conservative politicians, none of whom is going to be in the least affected by whatever follows.
And you wonder why people are concerned?
-
Which doesn't alter the facts, foremost being that they were not the heads of power for whom the vox pop voted.
And in this case, what has occurred, if you have noticed it, folks, is that we have had foisted upon us a cynic who, before the Brexit vote, had written two newspaper articles, one for and the other against Brexit, to be published as suites the agenda. In other words, a foot in either camp, depending on which would gain him most personal popularity and power in the days, months to come. In essence, a man of no convictions beyond that of self-promotion. And that the person now in charge of the fate of Britain. A person representing a small goup of wealthy, extreme nationalist Conservative politicians, none of whom is going to be in the least affected by whatever follows.
And you wonder why people are concerned?
Also - a man who voted twice against TM's WA, and then, after she promised to resign if it was passed, he suddenly changed his mind and voted for it. He doesn't seem to have any convictions whatsoever - just what's good for him personally.
-
It's not so rare: Johnson is the fifth in as many decades, following Callaghan, Major, Brown and May.
I think Johnson, like Darzi, is British.
Jeremy
Hmmm. It seems that my reply to this post has been deleted. How odd.
-
Well it is odd in this modern age to discuss democracy and monarchy in the same sentence, wouldn't you think? What kind of power would you give her and expect to maintain any semblance of democracy? We Americans, for sure, would not want to deal with the poor dear with the authority of let's say King George III. We had enough of him and his General Cornwallis and the two Howe brothers in 1776 and don;t need to go through that again. :)
Not in the least odd.
We have had that system in Britain for ages and ages, and mostly, it works pretty well. Much of its success or failure depends on the abilities and qualities of the person fulfilling the rôle, which is why there was so much anxiety - and still is - when people born and brough up outwith the confines of a life situation where pomp and circumstance and family responsibility and sacrifice are the basic raison d'ètre, come into the family through marriage. They don't have the background (and often not the culture) to cope, understand and take it on the chin when they have to do so. And if you think there is no sacrifice, ask yourself: how would you like to live a life where the spotlight is never off you and your relatives, where you have never enjoyed anonymity, and about the only publicity you are likely to get is that which comes in rabid piles when the press can find something to criticise you about, and over which to sell more trash news? And even then, the power of the person in the rôle is limited to ceremonial and representational functions.
And the value? The right person fosters a love of country, a rallying point of focus in emergencies such as war. The right person can - and does - exist as a person that can be looked upon as having the best of all desires and ambitions for his/her country at heart. CONTINUITY is perhaps its greatest function, something that lasts as representative of one's nation, whereas politicians come and go, squabble and squander and generally fuck us all about in their insane power games and vanities.
No, it is not the same thing as being a pop star. They have no massive consequences other than wet, teenage panties or, alternatively as well as possibly in tandem, eyes.
As to your references to monarchs of a bygone age, pointless nonsense: in this day and age you have to look outwith Britain and the rest of the first world to find that kind of monarchy; you are much more likely to find that kind of presidency. Look around you.
Rob
-
Rob I have no problem with the way you described royalty in your country. In fact I think it's very Noble. But my post was referring to your previous post where you bemoaned the fact she had no power and it seemed that you wish she had real power. That's contradictory to democracy. If she had real power what kind would you wish she had?
-
+1
Same question for you Bart. What power would you want your monarch have they don't have now?
-
Rob I have no problem with the way you described royalty in your country. In fact I think it's very Noble. But my post was referring to your previous post where you bemoaned the fact she had no power and it seemed that you wish she had real power. That's contradictory to democracy. If she had real power what kind would you wish she had?
The power of the monargy in England and in Holland is ceremonial.
And that is good.
They have power in a ceremonial way. Today they represent the face of the nation.
Political power is in the hands of the government and parlement as it should.
-
Rob I have no problem with the way you described royalty in your country. In fact I think it's very Noble. But my post was referring to your previous post where you bemoaned the fact she had no power and it seemed that you wish she had real power. That's contradictory to democracy. If she had real power what kind would you wish she had?
If she had real power, I'd like it to be one much as described by Bart: the legal ability to ask deeply probing questions, preferably in front of the highest judge in the realm, and to expect detailed, equally deep answers, without which she should be free to tell her troublesome PM to go away and return when better prepared.
Being obliged - apparently - to say yes to everything makes her position rather silly and, ultimately, herself as responsible as the government of the day for whatever disasters may follow in her name, regardless of her educated opinions possibly to the contary of what she is obliged to authorize.
And folks think royals have it easy.
-
If she had real power, I'd like it to be one much as described by Bart: the legal ability to ask deeply probing questions, preferably in front of the highest judge in the realm, and to expect detailed, equally deep answers, without which she should be free to tell her troublesome PM to go away and return when better prepared.
If you read the autobiographies of past prime ministers you'll learn that this is pretty much exactly what happens every week when the PM meets the Queen.
-
If you read the autobiographies of past prime ministers you'll learn that this is pretty much exactly what happens every week when the PM meets the Queen.
Ah, that would mean passing time within the shadow of people I mostly think very little positive about. Happy to learn my idea wasn't crazy!
:-)
-
If you read the autobiographies of past prime ministers you'll learn that this is pretty much exactly what happens every week when the PM meets the Queen.
Makes me wonder if there isn't some psychological thing going on where this might be the only conversation all week long that the PM has where the other party isn't trying to sell him something or else looking for a place to stick the knife. :)
-
If she had real power, I'd like it to be one much as described by Bart: the legal ability to ask deeply probing questions, preferably in front of the highest judge in the realm, and to expect detailed, equally deep answers, without which she should be free to tell her troublesome PM to go away and return when better prepared.
Being obliged - apparently - to say yes to everything makes her position rather silly and, ultimately, herself as responsible as the government of the day for whatever disasters may follow in her name, regardless of her educated opinions possibly to the contary of what she is obliged to authorize.
And folks think royals have it easy.
I wonder how much the monarch would be liked if she did ask such probing questions and sent the duly and democratically elected Prime Minister away because he didn't answer the way she expected? "Now Boris, go sit in the corner." Just who's running the government? The PM has to answer to the people. A monarch answers to no one.
In any case, if I pull that stuff with my wife, you know what she tells me to do. :)
-
I wonder how much the monarch would be liked if she did ask such probing questions and sent the duly and democratically elected Prime Minister away because he didn't answer the way she expected? "Now Boris, go sit in the corner." Just who's running the government? The PM has to answer to the people. A monarch answers to no one.
In any case, if I pull that stuff with my wife, you know what she tells me to do. :)
You asked a question and I gave you an honest answer. It's not my concern nor, probably, would it be hers in the situation of which we hypothesize here, to be loved: more would it be her concern to be right. In contrast, being loved, that's the stinking politician's only public concern. There are degrees of being a monarch; not all are absolute - that turns them into dictators, which is something else.
If we have a monarch who is also a congenital lier, we may as well do as you have done and just elect a president. Aren't they all in it for personal promotion, temporary taste of world-recognized power and the writing of lucrative memoirs at the end it all?
Rob
-
You asked a question and I gave you an honest answer. It's not my concern nor, probably, would it be hers in the situation of which we hypothesize here, to be loved: more would it be her concern to be right. In contrast, being loved, that's the stinking politician's only public concern. There are degrees of being a monarch; not all are absolute - that turns them into dictators, which is something else.
If we have a monarch who is also a congenital lier, we may as well do as you have done and just elect a president. Aren't they all in it for personal promotion, temporary taste of world-recognized power and the writing of lucrative memoirs at the end it all?
Rob
The advantage of a president or prime minister is that their terms eventually ends or you can fire them under really bad behavior. With a monarch, you could get stuck with stupidity or worse, brutal reign.
-
The advantage of a president or prime minister is that their terms eventually ends or you can fire them under really bad behavior. With a monarch, you could get stuck with stupidity or worse, brutal reign.
You're not paying attention.
All monarchies are not the same; ours has been tailored to suit a democratic form of government, even though it becomes ever more doubtful that democracy is a form of government that leads to optimum results.
To borrow an idea from fans of your Constitution: democracy puts power into the hands of an always numerically greater number of idiots than of wise people.
There is no denying that sad fact.
-
Not stupid people, greedy people who want a free lunch.
-
Not stupid people, greedy people who want a free lunch.
Agreed, but they are really the same: there is no free lunch, just as there is no free love: somebody always pays. That's from Suzi Quatro's mum, so it must be right. She's from Grosse Pointe, Michigan, you know.
The gems, the pearls...
:-)
-
Suzi is still rocking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkhU3sA0sak
-
As seen from Holland
[edit: gratuitously offensive cartoon removed by moderator, after complaints]
-
No point in further embarrassing Jeremy, Bart.
-
I wouldn't know, Russ. Maybe I would have liked it, I have no idea.
I'm afraid I edited the post to delete the attached image, Bart, and I have no way of knowing its source. I assure you that you would neither have liked it nor found it remotely amusing.
Jeremy
-
No point in further embarrassing Jeremy, Bart.
Again with the personal attacks, Russ?
-
I saw the post, Jeremy. You embarrassed the hell out of yourself with that post. And here I was, trying to limit the damage.
-
The power of the monargy in England and in Holland is ceremonial.
And that is good.
They have power in a ceremonial way. Today they represent the face of the nation.
Political power is in the hands of the government and parlement as it should.
Tell that last line to those livng in Russia, Syria, Venezuela, Turkey etc.
A government and its structure can often be as bad as the worst monarch because it pretends to be what it is through public support.
Think of those happy lands where opposition candidates are jailed and otherwise prevented from standing. Some free elections eh? where only the party in power is allowed to stand. Reminds me of Henry V and that line about sheathing their swords for lack of agument.
-
Tell that last line to those livng in Russia, Syria, Venezuela, Turkey etc.
A government and its structure can often be as bad as the worst monarch because it pretends to be what it is through public support.
Think of those happy lands where opposition candidates are jailed and otherwise prevented from standing. Some free elections eh? where only the party in power is allowed to stand. Reminds me of Henry V and that line about sheathing their swords for lack of agument.
Well, nothing's perfect. But I don't think most people want to go back to monarchies.
The problem with countries like Russia, Venezuela, etc is that they don;t have a solid and respected constitution as America does that protects individual rights. Also, America has separation of power between the Executive (President), Legislative (Congress) and the Judiciary, each with its own powers that are often in conflict with the other branches. That helps keep power from accumulating in one branch. That's unlike a parliamentary system where the executive and legislative are joined at the hip sometimes even having the judiciary connected as well.
One additional check is if the branches are from different parties. Some would say that creates divided government which creates gridlock. Frankly, that;s good. Making it hard to pass laws leaves the public more free to go about it's business without government interference and nosy bureaucrats. We stay freer.
Here's a good essay on the three branches of American government and checks and balances to limit governmental power. A monarchy wouldn't and couldn't operate this way.
-
Sorry, here's the link.
https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/three-branches-of-government#section_6
-
Tell that last line to those livng in Russia, Syria, Venezuela, Turkey etc.
A government and its structure can often be as bad as the worst monarch because it pretends to be what it is through public support.
Think of those happy lands where opposition candidates are jailed and otherwise prevented from standing. Some free elections eh? where only the party in power is allowed to stand. Reminds me of Henry V and that line about sheathing their swords for lack of agument.
you are right,
I should have added- when this government and parlement is chosen in a truly democratic way
-
I'm afraid I edited the post to delete the attached image, Bart, and I have no way of knowing its source. I assure you that you would neither have liked it nor found it remotely amusing.
Jeremy
It’s from a Dutch national daily newspaper so to predict what Bart’s reaction would be with such certainty seems a mind-reading step too far.
-
A friend sent me this link to a short video seeking to explain why Brexiteers do not want a deal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBPZxbO7OLM&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBPZxbO7OLM&feature=youtu.be). Anything in it?
-
And this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o
Rob
-
A friend sent me this link to a short video seeking to explain why Brexiteers do not want a deal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBPZxbO7OLM&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBPZxbO7OLM&feature=youtu.be). Anything in it?
I stopped after 3 minutes. What a load of bollocks! (Is that what Brits would say?). Just a typical leftist ignorance. How LLJ (Little Leftie Johnny) imagines capitalism.
-
I stopped after 3 minutes. What a load of bollocks! (Is that what Brits would say?). Just a typical leftist ignorance. How LLJ (Little Leftie Johnny) imagines capitalism.
Yes, of course, there's a lot of that. And yet, the middle class has seen no increase in wealth since the 80s, and large rich corporations and wealthy individuals get away with not paying taxes because of shelters that were set up for them, probably lobbied for by them.
Remember how not taxing wealthy people was going to trickle down to everyone else. THAT's what I call a "load of bollocks." Forget the ideology and rhetoric, look at the data. Policies were put into place that favoured one group over others. It's not immigrants or the EU that caused those problems. And it's not Brexit that's going to fix them.
-
I stopped after 3 minutes. What a load of bollocks! (Is that what Brits would say?). Just a typical leftist ignorance. How LLJ (Little Leftie Johnny) imagines capitalism.
Yeah you say that Slobo but it's odd that one of the main Brexiteers has just moved his money to Ireland.
-
This is a series of 10 short episodes (by photographer Martin Middlebrook) that clarified things a bit for me.
It's not by politicians or about them, but it is about what real people think and feel.
It's not only because of a (misplaced) sense of nostalgia by the older generations, also most migrant workers who had built a new life and contributed to society voted for a Brexit.
Martin Middlebrook’s Brexit Travelogue
https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/RC-017199/martin-middlebrook-s-brexit-travelogue/
I'm not sure whether it's geofenced for countries outside of Europe, I hope not.
All videos have a selection of different voiceover languages/subtitles.
It works, but I can't get rid of the French voice.
-
Yes, of course, there's a lot of that. And yet, the middle class has seen no increase in wealth since the 80s, and large rich corporations and wealthy individuals get away with not paying taxes because of shelters that were set up for them, probably lobbied for by them.
Remember how not taxing wealthy people was going to trickle down to everyone else. THAT's what I call a "load of bollocks." Forget the ideology and rhetoric, look at the data. Policies were put into place that favoured one group over others. It's not immigrants or the EU that caused those problems. And it's not Brexit that's going to fix them.
I think higher taxes, loss of industries to foreign competitors, breakup of families due to divorce, single parent children, going off the gold standard, all were big contributors. Car workers today make a lot less than they use too because of the severe competition from foreign car manufacturers. That's just one example. Lower and middle class social security, property taxes, sales taxes all are higher percent of total earnings. There were no Medicare payments back then at all. Children of unmarried parents went from 7% to 25%. Divorce was barely as prevalent back then; due to split incomes after divorce between the parents, families are financially worse off; children are hurt psychologically and do worse in life. Inflation from 1970 to 1982 reduced the values of the dollar by 55%. So savings and incomes take a big hit. Of course, the rich don';t get hurt as much. If you're worth 5 million and lose 40% you're still doing very well with 3 million. Printing money to support government budgets have gone out of sight since we went of the gold standard. 1 trillion this year alone. And the administration is Republican. Now we have the Democrat clamoring for more spending - free college, free Medicare for all, $15 trillion for the climate, etc. IF the greedy public votes for these "free" things, it's all going to come down in a heap. It doesn't bode well for the future.
Britain and Europe are up there too with deficit spending. Don;t know off hand if it's better or worse that the USA.
-
It works, but I can't get rid of the French voice.
I pressed on the little voice caption icon on the bottom to the left of the settings icon. Then selected "Plurilingual (International)"
-
I pressed on the little voice caption icon on the bottom to the left of the settings icon. Then selected "Plurilingual (International)"
I eventually went onto Italian, and that worked okay until it didn't.
However, I got through it in the end, but what a hassle! The format of tiny segments sucks.
I like the man's photography, and note that he lives in Paris... :-)
Rob
-
I stopped after 3 minutes. What a load of bollocks! (Is that what Brits would say?). Just a typical leftist ignorance. How LLJ (Little Leftie Johnny) imagines capitalism.
It is (although I'd describe it as utter drivel), and it is.
It didn't take me that long. His argument, if it can be so dignified, is based on premises which he has invented.
Jeremy
-
The video suggestion by Rob C was more interesting.
-
The problem with everything like this is simple: left alone the world ticks on relatively calmly. Then, for what nobody will convince me is anything other than self-serving political ladder-climbing, the status quo is thrown up in the air to the tune of a thousand lies.
Despite claims to the opposite, it's obvious to anyone who cares to think about it, that the only winners are, indeed, going to be those capable of weathering and profiting from the disruption that is inevitable. Nobody in power gives a shit about the little guy oop north, never have, from any party. Those voters are just cannon fodder. British voting has been traditional for generations, regardless of how shamefully the punters are treated - it's all about the slogans and enshrined class hatreds. It's partly why we ended up with two major players. Maybe things are about to change with the introduction of a powerful new third bogeyman: foreign nationality hatred. Watch the two major players start to compete on that score.
I have never met anyone able to give me a first-hand example of a European having stolen their livelihood. On the other hand, I know of many Brits who have taken full advantage of Mallorcan health services whilst out here on holiday... from accident victims (plus relatives of Brits who have died on holiday this year) to those international British drunks that have to get scraped off the sidewalks in certain well-known resorts around Palma and even close to here: Alcudia.
-
The problem with everything like this is simple: left alone the world ticks on relatively calmly. Then, for what nobody will convince me is anything other than self-serving political ladder-climbing, the status quo is thrown up in the air to the tune of a thousand lies.
Despite claims to the opposite, it's obvious to anyone who cares to think about it, that the only winners are, indeed, going to be those capable of weathering and profiting from the disruption that is inevitable. Nobody in power gives a shit about the little guy oop north, never have, from any party. Those voters are just cannon fodder. British voting has been traditional for generations, regardless of how shamefully the punters are treated - it's all about the slogans and enshrined class hatreds. It's partly why we ended up with two major players. Maybe things are about to change with the introduction of a powerful new third bogeyman: foreign nationality hatred. Watch the two major players start to compete on that score.
I have never met anyone able to give me a first-hand example of a European having stolen their livelihood. On the other hand, I know of many Brits who have taken full advantage of Mallorcan health services whilst out here on holiday... from accident victims (plus relatives of Brits who have died on holiday this year) to those international British drunks that have to get scraped off the sidewalks in certain well-known resorts around Palma and even close to here: Alcudia.
Some Canadian politicians have tried to adopt the "stop mass immigration" mantra, despite the face that Canada does not have the problem. I got a mailing once telling me that the current government is trying to take any my right to have a firearm, a right that does not exist here. We seem to be unable to find an osmotic barrier to stop stupidity.
Every survey I've seen in the last 30 years shows that Canada will have labour shortages in many sectors of the economy in the near to medium term, and there is no incentive program that will convince people to have lots more babies, so if we don't let immigrants in, we fall apart. I don't know if something similar applies to the USA, except that anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that most of its immigrants (legal or not) are working and paying taxes, which make them better citizens that the current President who brags about not paying taxes.
The ultimate stupidity about immigrants stealing jobs is that it implicitly assumes that the economy is a zero-sum game, for which Milton Friedman was heard spinning in his grave. The second most stupid comment is that "they are stealing our jobs". Oh yeah, who is "our" in this context. It's nobody's job until you apply for it and get hired. And then you only get to keep it if you do it properly. Country of origin has little bearing on that. If employers can't "old stock" find people to hire, you can't blame them for hiring immigrants, can you?
So instead of having an intelligent discussion about who you let in, how you check them out, how to integrate them, what to do with them if they turn out to be bums, all highly legitimate concerns, we have the current social media sh*t show, aided and abetted by cynical politicians who never seem to be able to solve any problems anymore.
-
It works, but I can't get rid of the French voice.
Now that's a problem which has beset the EU for some time ;)
Apart from the "It works" bit, of course.
Jeremy
-
This is bad news.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2019/08/what-happens-brexpats-no-deal-brexit
-
This is bad news.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2019/08/what-happens-brexpats-no-deal-brexit
Indeed.
I saw a TV interview with a British pensioner in Spain who voted Leave and had just bought a house and was now concerned that he would not be able to live there due to his medical situation. He had assumed that ending free movement did not apply to "proper Europeans" like him, only to some other group.
-
Indeed.
I saw a TV interview with a British pensioner in Spain who voted Leave and had just bought a house and was now concerned that he would not be able to live there due to his medical situation. He had assumed that ending free movement did not apply to "proper Europeans" like him, only to some other group.
And that ¡s where Boris, Farage et al. came into their own.
Confuse the issue with images of hordes of marching migrants who never saw Britain, that if they wanted to, would try to get there whether or not the EEC existed! If anything, it's the Europeans at the sharp end that are doing their best to stop the traffic. They are the lands that have borne the brunt of it all. Britain has the Channel. That's it's first natural line of defence. Always was.
As for the person in the interiew mentioned above: that anyone would own property in Europe and then vote to leave just illustrates how stupid so many people have been over this issue, how devoid of any idea of actions and consequences.
Rob
-
It would not be very difficult to make fearful 'propaganda' about leaving the EU in line with the propaganda of the brexitieers...
But the remainers find that is not the way to go; Alas, it would be very effective to reach the audience of the people that voted leave.
The video you posted ( with Stephen Fry's voice) was full of reasonable information why leaving would not be a good idea, but most people find it to intellectual and prefer simple slogans, true or not.
There was a sketch in Holland in the 1990's about a populistic party called the Contra-Party.
Their slogan was: Everybody Rich!
-
... Britain has the Channel. That's it's first natural line of defence. Always was.l.
“How migrants cross the Channel from Calais” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49530997
Nearly 1,100 have successfully crossed the Channel this year, including more than 336 in August, that's the highest monthly figure ever recorded.
There is a whole camp of migrants in Calais, whose sole raison d’etre (pardon my French) is waiting to cross the Channel. Italy also has sea (almost) all around it. Never stopped migrants either.
-
“How migrants cross the Channel from Calais” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49530997
There is a whole camp of migrants in Calais, whose sole raison d’etre (pardon my French) is waiting to cross the Channel. Italy also has sea (almost) all around it. Never stopped migrants either.
Think of the figures if there was no Channel. Italy gets them mostly on the southern islands closer to Africa, and others come in from the east, overland. Greece is little better.
As long as there are people-smugglers willing to sell crappy inflatables to deperate people, the trade will continue.
Those camps at Calais underline the fact that Europe is not the perpetrator or cause of the migrant/refugee problem for Britain: they want to get out of Europe, where they are already legally "safe", because Britain offers a better set of freebies and bleeding hearts. It's Britain's own bloody fault.
-
because Britain offers a better set of freebies and bleeding hearts.
I doubt if that's actually the case. One thing that draws them is the fact that probably they have relatives already here, and that they speak the language.
Anyway - if you think this is bad, wait till the folk whose farms turned to dust head north looking for the fields made greener by all the lovely co2!!
-
Indeed.
I saw a TV interview with a British pensioner in Spain who voted Leave and had just bought a house and was now concerned that he would not be able to live there due to his medical situation. He had assumed that ending free movement did not apply to "proper Europeans" like him, only to some other group.
One of the reasons I'm against government control of medical care in the US is that we would give up personal control. In effect, you turn over your life to some government bureaucrats who may reverse years of procedures due to changes in policy, economics, budgets, treaties, etc. I'd rather make these decisions myself.
Currently, because I'm a senior, I get Medicare controlled by the US government. Because of it, many of the best doctors have "opted out". They don;t accept Medicare coverage. So if I want to use their services, I would have to pay "cash" out-of-pocket. We already are losing our freedom of choice here too and suffering from the results of government control.
-
Think of the figures if there was no Channel. Italy gets them mostly on the southern islands closer to Africa, and others come in from the east, overland. Greece is little better.
As long as there are people-smugglers willing to sell crappy inflatables to deperate people, the trade will continue.
Those camps at Calais underline the fact that Europe is not the perpetrator or cause of the migrant/refugee problem for Britain: they want to get out of Europe, where they are already legally "safe", because Britain offers a better set of freebies and bleeding hearts. It's Britain's own bloody fault.
What you describe is happening in the US as well. Central Americans fleeing their horrendous conditions in their countries flee north into Mexico. But they don;t stop there even though they are now safe. Their real destination is America where we offer freebies the whole world is jealous of. In Mexico, they'd have to get a lousy job, even if available. We don't have an English Channel to keep them out, only a short walk across the shallow Rio Grande River. So Trump wants to build a wall, our Channel. Of course the bleeding hearts here think that's barbaric and we should open the gates to the world's desperate, actually something we've done for 200 years. But they want to do it without any restraints or rules.
When the next recession hits, all Americans will insist the entire wall be built.
-
One of the reasons I'm against government control of medical care in the US is that we would give up personal control. In effect, you turn over your life to some government bureaucrats who may reverse years of procedures due to changes in policy, economics, budgets, treaties, etc. I'd rather make these decisions myself.
Currently, because I'm a senior, I get Medicare controlled by the US government. Because of it, many of the best doctors have "opted out". They don;t accept Medicare coverage. So if I want to use their services, I would have to pay "cash" out-of-pocket. We already are losing our freedom of choice here too and suffering from the results of government control.
Thankfully we're none of us down to the level of stupidity of the US health care system. Of course post-Brexit that may change, but for now we're ok.
-
Thankfully we're none of us down to the level of stupidity of the US health care system. Of course post-Brexit that may change, but for now we're ok.
But you do have that problem. In fact you were the one who stated it. I copied your post below. The poor British guy has to give up his home in Spain and move back to Britain to get health care. By the way, I had a friend who lived in Sao Paulo Brasil with his Brazilian wife. He too had to give up the apartment they owned and return to the USA because Medicare wouldn't pick up costs to treat his heart disease while there. Had he saved his Medicare tax deductions through the years, he could have had private insurance and stayed in Sao Paulo to breathe all that smoke from the Amazon fires. Oh wait. I'm conflating threads.
Indeed.
I saw a TV interview with a British pensioner in Spain who voted Leave and had just bought a house and was now concerned that he would not be able to live there due to his medical situation. He had assumed that ending free movement did not apply to "proper Europeans" like him, only to some other group.
-
One of the reasons I'm against government control of medical care in the US is that we would give up personal control. In effect, you turn over your life to some government bureaucrats who may reverse years of procedures due to changes in policy, economics, budgets, treaties, etc. I'd rather make these decisions myself.
You keep repeating this mantra of loss of control and it simply isn't true. You just keep repeating the same ideological talking points that do not correspond to reality.
-
But you do have that problem. In fact you were the one who stated it. I copied your post below. The poor British guy has to give up his home in Spain and move back to Britain to get health care. By the way, I had a friend who lived in Sao Paulo Brasil with his Brazilian wife. He too had to give up the apartment they owned and return to the USA because Medicare wouldn't pick up costs to treat his heart disease while there. Had he saved his Medicare tax deductions through the years, he could have had private insurance and stayed in Sao Paulo to breathe all that smoke from the Amazon fires. Oh wait. I'm conflating threads.
Why do you think that the person I referred to would be covered by Medicare? In fact this guy has an option of moving somewhere where can can get free medical care. That is not, in general, possible in the US.
Actually I would be interested to know - and this is a genuine question - what would be the cost of fully comprehensive medical insurance in the US - covering EVERYTHING - pre-existing conditions, chronic care, the lot?
-
You keep repeating this mantra of loss of control and it simply isn't true. You just keep repeating the same ideological talking points that do not correspond to reality.
Ask Rob if he's losing control of his medical care in Spain.
In any case, I haven;t noticed you changing your talking points. We're up to page 49. Has anyone changed their mind in this forum? Ever? :)
-
Why do you think that the person I referred to would be covered by Medicare? In fact this guy has an option of moving somewhere where can can get free medical care. That is not, in general, possible in the US.
Actually I would be interested to know - and this is a genuine question - what would be the cost of fully comprehensive medical insurance in the US - covering EVERYTHING - pre-existing conditions, chronic care, the lot?
He wouldn't have to move if he had private health care. Neither would the person in the US with private health care.
I don;t know what private health care costs anymore as I'm on both government Medicare and private insurance. My wife and I still spend around $6000 a year for insurance not counting deductibles for both Medicare and private insurance premiums. In any case, half of America's medical costs are being supported by the government. That raises the cost of medical care because there's no incentive for individuals to cut back since the government pays. That will get worse if everyone is covered by government or there will be government cutbacks on the care you can get. There's a limit to how much money the government can spend. Note that 40% of total insurance is by private insurance usually through places of work. Here's a good chart on breakouts through the years.
https://www.chcf.org/publication/us-health-care-spending-who-pays/
-
He wouldn't have to move if he had private health care. Neither would the person in the US with private health care.
I don;t know what private health care costs anymore as I'm on both government Medicare and private insurance. My wife and I still spend around $6000 a year for insurance not counting deductibles for both Medicare and private insurance premiums. In any case, half of America's medical costs are being supported by the government. That raises the cost of medical care because there's no incentive for individuals to cut back since the government pays. That will get worse if everyone is covered by government or there will be government cutbacks on the care you can get. There's a limit to how much money the government can spend. Note that 40% of total insurance is by private insurance usually through places of work. Here's a good chart on breakouts through the years.
https://www.chcf.org/publication/us-health-care-spending-who-pays/
Then how do you explain that US health costs are generally accepted to be much higher (double?) than in other developed countries with universal health care but with worse outcomes? At the least, shouldn't it be trending the other way?
But in any case, almost everything you said is an ideological assertion. The mantra is "government bad" "private good". All you can say is that sometimes that's true and sometimes it's not.
-
Then how do you explain that US health costs are generally accepted to be much higher (double?) than in other developed countries with universal health care but with worse outcomes? At the least, shouldn't it be trending the other way?
But in any case, almost everything you said is an ideological assertion. The mantra is "government bad" "private good". All you can say is that sometimes that's true and sometimes it's not.
Yes, my main concern is that turning control of anything over to the government is a slippery slope. Each additional step takes away more individual freedom. While we all have to live with rules and regulations, trying to keep them at a minimum to protect those freedoms may mean we're at more risk in life. That's what freedom is all about. Frankly, I'd rather trust in my own ability and concern then turn my life over to some government bureaucrat who could care less about me and my family.
-
Freedom costs.
-
Coming up to the last period of ‘overtime’; this week promises some interesting exchanges in the UK Parliament. So below a link to an ‘informed’ article on an issue that may well come before the courts.
http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/prorogation-constitutional-principle-and-law-fact-and-causation/
Professor Paul Craig was educated at Worcester College, Oxford, where he subsequently became a Fellow and Tutor in law in 1976. He was appointed to a Readership in 1990, and then became an ad hominem Professor in 1996. He was appointed to an established chair in 1998, the Professorship in English law, which is held at St John's College Oxford. He was made an Honorary QC in 2000, and an Honorary Bencher of Gray's Inn in the same year. He has lectured at many other institutions across the world, including in North America, Europe, China and Australia.
-
I am sure there must be a logical explanation for this: ;)
ad hominem Professor
-
... and Ivan Rogers writing in The Spectator on the ‘realities of a no deal Brexit ‘ (You may need to register)
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/ivan-rogers-the-realities-of-a-no-deal-brexit/
-
“How migrants cross the Channel from Calais” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49530997
There is a whole camp of migrants in Calais, whose sole raison d’etre (pardon my French) is waiting to cross the Channel. Italy also has sea (almost) all around it. Never stopped migrants either.
But you do trust walls to keep immigrants out?
-
I am sure there must be a logical explanation for this: ;)
There is
‘... there's no vacancy, but you're so good we'll give you the title Professor anyway’
-
I am sure there must be a logical explanation for this: ;)
Now there's a job! Maybe time spent here isn't wasted after all?
-
But you do trust walls to keep immigrants out?
Surely they will, at least to a significant degree, just ask Israel.
-
There is
‘... there's no vacancy, but you're so good we'll give you the title Professor anyway’
I meant the ad hominem part ;) Otherwise, is there a course in teaching people how to use that logical fallacy to their advantage in debates?
-
Surely they will, at least to a significant degree, just ask Israel.
Bad example - Israel is FULL of immigrants!
-
Surely they will, at least to a significant degree, just ask Israel.
I know Trump did get the idea from them....
i was planning to ask the Sovjetunion... i see a wall as closing in, goes well in line with protectionism....
Problem with the USA is- it is not the only border... people alternatively take boats to migrate...
enormous shoreline like the Mediterrain - better start a Chinese wall.
-
Yes, my main concern is that turning control of anything over to the government is a slippery slope. Each additional step takes away more individual freedom. While we all have to live with rules and regulations, trying to keep them at a minimum to protect those freedoms may mean we're at more risk in life. That's what freedom is all about. Frankly, I'd rather trust in my own ability and concern then turn my life over to some government bureaucrat who could care less about me and my family.
That's one sort of freedom. Another is freedom from the fear that illness will destroy your family finances, with everything that follows, or worse, that you will die needlessly because you couldn't pay the doctor's bill.
-
... that you will die needlessly because you couldn't pay the doctor's bill.
That's aint gonna happen. ERs will treat you with or without insurance.
-
Bad example - Israel is FULL of immigrants!
Bad logic. If it is "ful," as you say, that was before the wall.
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israels-border-walls-A-case-study-For-Trumps-mantra-574517
After breaking ground in 2010, Israel completed the 242-km. (150-mile) fence in December 2013 at a cost of around $450 million. Whereas about 9,500 Africans crossed into Israel illegally in the first six months of 2012, less than three dozen did so in the first six months of 2013, at which time the major components of the barrier had been completed.
Illegal immigration through Sinai dropped to 11 cases in 2016 and 0 in 2017.
The fence also has dramatically reduced the smuggling of contraband into Israel and there have been no security breaches from Sinai since then...
There were over 70 suicide bombings—killing nearly 300 Israelis—carried out from the West Bank over that time period, until the first significant contiguous section of the barrier was completed.
There were 12 such attacks between August 2003 and the end of 2006.
-
That's aint gonna happen. ERs will treat you with or without insurance.
When I had my heart surgery in April the guy in the bed next to me was a middle age homeless person who was getting his heart valve repaired. All at the expense of the government.
He had no money or insurance. His wife also homeless would take showers in our patients only bathroom. When he was transferred, she left with the pillows and linen. They were actually nice people. I wished them well.
-
because Britain offers a better set of freebies and bleeding hearts.
I doubt if that's actually the case. One thing that draws them is the fact that probably they have relatives already here, and that they speak the language.
Anyway - if you think this is bad, wait till the folk whose farms turned to dust head north looking for the fields made greener by all the lovely co2!!
Grapes of Wrath.
:-)
-
Ask Rob if he's losing control of his medical care in Spain.
In any case, I haven;t noticed you changing your talking points. We're up to page 49. Has anyone changed their mind in this forum? Ever? :)
Rob can only tell you that he simply does not know his future re. medicine.
I had private health insurance here in Spain, alongside the free care to which I and my wife were entitled because of EEC membership. We dropped the private for two reasons: she discovered that the public care was excellent when she unexpectedly found herself in a public health hospital with a broken hip and, hours later, that cancer had returned; the last premium I paid, eleven years ago, was Euros 3,600. Today, it would be God knows what. I couldn't keep that flying much longer, but while she was getting cancer treatment, no way we'd stop without knowing the alternative quality first-hand.
Your perpetual paean for the beauty of private health care sounds pretty hollow: look at your own circumstances, as you describe them. I far rather have the Spanish national service than yours. My local, Spanish health problem is not that of the service, nor caused by it: it's the bastard child of the Brexiteers.
-
Rob can only tell you that he simply does not know his future re. medicine.
I had private health insurance here in Spain, alongside the free care to which I and my wife were entitled because of EEC membership. We dropped the private for two reasons: she discovered that the public care was excellent when she unexpectedly found herself in a public health hospital with a broken hip and, hours later, that cancer had returned; the last premium I paid, eleven years ago, was Euros 3,600. Today, it would be God knows what. I couldn't keep that flying much longer, but while she was getting cancer treatment, no way we'd stop without knowing the alternative quality first-hand.
Your perpetual paean for the beauty of private health care sounds pretty hollow: look at your own circumstances, as you describe them. I far rather have the Spanish national service than yours. My local, Spanish health problem is not that of the service, nor caused by it: it's the bastard child of the Brexiteers.
Health care is a thorny issue. I'm not saying it isn't. Up to Obamacare, 85-90% of the people were covered already either by government or private insurance. As we switch over to more and more government payments, the amount spent will go up as all government programs do. Look at the cost of going to college since the government gave loans to anyone who wanted them? It's 4x the cost it use to be just a few years ago. There are no controls. It would have been better to just help those who couldn't afford insurance rather than trying to nationalize the whole thing which is where we're going. The money isn;t there without controls, limitations, and competition. Arguing that people can't afford to have private insurance after the government impose higher taxes to pay for "free" government medical care is a poor argument. It leaves you with not enough money to pay for private insurance. Also blaming Brexiteers is really blaming the government. Leaving your health in the care if others decisions can only happen when the government controls the situation. Why would you want control in the hands of Brexiteers or people like Boris? That's my point. They're a**holes.
-
When I had my heart surgery in April the guy in the bed next to me was a middle age homeless person who was getting his heart valve repaired. All at the expense of the government.
He had no money or insurance. His wife also homeless would take showers in our patients only bathroom. When he was transferred, she left with the pillows and linen. They were actually nice people. I wished them well.
Cool. So nobody in the US actually needs insurance! Who knew?
-
Bad logic. If it is "ful," as you say, that was before the wall.
Bad reading comprehension. "Full" doesn't mean literally full in this context. Are you sure you're an American?
-
Cool. So nobody in the US actually needs insurance! Who knew?
That's a great question. I don;t know who paid for the heart surgery for the guy. Apparently, EMS technicians picked him up on the street having a problem and brought him to to the Emergency Room. When the doctors found he had this heart issue, they moved him up to my room in the heart wing of the hospital. It could be that New York State is paying for it through Medicaid not the US government. NY spends around 70 billion on Medicaid for NY residents. The lack of insurance issue happens with recurring disease or condition that isn't an "emergency".
-
Bad logic. If it is "ful," as you say, that was before the wall.
Bad reading comprehension. "Full" doesn't mean literally full in this context..
You are deflecting. It is irrelevant what “full” means (noticed I put it in quotation marks in my previous post?). The point I was making, from the very beginning, is that the walls in Israel simply work, dramatically reducing illegal immigration and terrorist attacks.
-
When I had my heart surgery in April the guy in the bed next to me was a middle age homeless person who was getting his heart valve repaired. All at the expense of the government.
Cool. So nobody in the US actually needs insurance! Who knew?
A U.S. federal statute, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986), requires hospitals to treat indigent patients with serious medical conditions (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305897/).
Many people in the United States who do not otherwise qualify for comprehensive government-funded medical care (unlike, for example, veterans, old people, and those whose incomes are below the poverty level in the state where they live) typically check into hospital emergency rooms when they have a medical problem.
The law has been controversial because it frequently is used to provide treatment for routine medical problems. One of the purposes of a subsequent federal statute, the 2010 Affordable Care Act (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf) ("Obamacare") was to provide a mechanism for those who could afford private medical insurance but previously could not qualify to purchase it—for example, because of existing conditions which insurance companies declined to cover—to acquire insurance coverage from government-operated marketplace "exchanges," thus relieving some of the economic pressure on hospitals to provide unreimbursed care to individuals who did not genuinely have a medical emergency.
-
A U.S. federal statute, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986), requires hospitals to treat indigent patients with serious medical conditions (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305897/).
Many people in the United States who do not otherwise qualify for comprehensive government-funded medical care (unlike, for example, veterans, old people, and those whose incomes are below the poverty level in the state where they live) typically check into hospital emergency rooms when they have a medical problem.
The law has been controversial because it frequently is used to provide treatment for routine medical problems. One of the purposes of a subsequent federal statute, the 2010 Affordable Care Act (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf) ("Obamacare") was to provide a mechanism for those who could afford private medical insurance but previously could not qualify to purchase it—for example, because of existing conditions which insurance companies declined to cover—to acquire insurance coverage from government-operated marketplace "exchanges," thus relieving some of the economic pressure on hospitals to provide unreimbursed care to individuals who did not genuinely have a medical emergency.
I never could understand how such a Act can be constitutional. Where does it grant the Federal government the power to enact such laws and rules? Why can;t the government then enact a law that requires butchers to furnish meat to indigent people? Maybe cameras too?
-
Unless prohibited in the constitution, congress and the state legislatures may make such legislation as they see fit.
So, no issue.
-
Unless prohibited in the constitution, congress and the state legislatures may make such legislation as they see fit.
So, no issue.
You have it backwards at least for the Federal government. The Constitution grants enumerated powers; it doesn't deny them. If the power isn't listed in the Constitution, then the federal government isn't supposed to be able to pass laws about it. For example, Congress once passed a law outlawing possession of guns within a certain distance from schools under its enumerated power to regulate Interstate Commerce. The Supreme Court said this was going too far. There's no relation between the act and Commerce so the act became unconstitutional and unenforceable.
So getting back to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986), under what enumerated powers does the constitution grant the Federal government the right to enact this law?
-
It is less than immediately obviously that funding of American healthcare is relevant to Brexit. I don't mind some drift, but this is getting silly.
Jeremy
-
Sorry about the drift. I keep getting confused which thread I'm in. Extreme Weather and the other "...skeptic...." thread are really very similar.
-
It is less than immediately obviously that funding of American healthcare is relevant to Brexit. I don't mind some drift, but this is getting silly.
Jeremy
;-)
-
It is less than immediately obviously that funding of American healthcare is relevant to Brexit. I don't mind some drift, but this is getting silly.
Jeremy
Getting?
-
I never could understand how such a Act can be constitutional. Where does it grant the Federal government the power to enact such laws and rules? Why can;t the government then enact a law that requires butchers to furnish meat to indigent people? Maybe cameras too?
Because without meat or a camera you don't die.
-
Because without meat or a camera you don't die.
Whoa there, Peter: that's complex; two factors at once!
:-)
-
speaking of drama -
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49570682
now it gets interesting.
-
What if the EU doesn't give Britain what they want?
-
It's not really about one side or another "not getting it" It's just that Alan doesn't know what he's talking about. That's ok - he doesn't live here so he's not aware of the issues, what's real and what's propaganda and he can't he expected to. But it just makes discussion a bit pointless.
Funny that's what I think of you Europeans always knowing what's best for America.
-
What if the EU doesn't give Britain what they want?
It is impossible to have a border that is half open half closed- So the EU cannot give them that.
Also from the point of regulation immigration that would be a bad option ...
So the question is what do they want?
-
It seems like they'll cancel Brexit then.
-
So leaving the EU it is.
Not neccessarily.
There's never been an overall majority across the population to leave and there's still a VERY active campaign to remain in the EU. There still remains a good chance that snaity will will prevail and there'll be a second referendum which will overturn the first (dubious) result.
-
Funny that's what I think of you Europeans always knowing what's best for America.
Which is why I generally don't comment on US-only issues (even though I lived there for quite a while).
-
Perhaps a temporary reprieve.
I wouldn't depend on the young vote: I imagine it has been soured off along with the rest of the electorate's enthusiasm, one way or the other.
The danger in that, of course, is that the radicals take the political stage because they are the ones committed to getting their hands on power. We have that proof in the current Tory leadership. I can no longer recognize my old party of choice.
The majority - what is it? That mass of people watching football or cricket on tv; the same people gathered in corners in pubs getting smashed because there's nothing better to do? How can anyone really expect them to care much about anything beyond the next pay-packet? An average education that is not amongst the highest in Europe; a desperate lack of general ability to converse in at least one other language. And arching above all that, class and regional loyalties that dictate that whatever London and the south want must be bad for them in the north. In Scotland, there is even more confusion: the belief that separation from England is going to be economically better for them yet the opposite belief that continued union with Europe is going to be much the better option. So, on the one hand, standing alone, but on the other, being part of a gang. Irony? Wot that? And never have I seen that apparent dichotomy exposed and discussed. Perhaps six million people just don't matter. Interesting thought: that's the same figure as the Holocaust victims. So, in real terms, the Nazis could be said to have wiped out the equivalent of the entire population of Scotland. That, apart from interesting, is a sobering thought.
And guess where politics in the UK is headed?
-
What's very confusing to me from this side of the pond is that parliament can stop Brexit legally by a vote. Yet, the referendum by non-binding vote of the people calls for Brexit. If it's so bad and parliament represents the people's wishes, and those wishes have changed, why don't they just shut it down?
-
What's very confusing to me from this side of the pond is that parliament can stop Brexit legally by a vote. Yet, the referendum by non-binding vote of the people calls for Brexit. If it's so bad and parliament represents the people's wishes, and those wishes have changed, why don't they just shut it down?
Yes, it can appear confusing but no more so that the US Electoral College.
When we say that a referendum is binding, just how "binding" is binding? It's not as if there is a lot of precedent to fall back on, so far as I know.
-
Yes, it can appear confusing but no more so that the US Electoral College.
When we say that a referendum is binding, just how "binding" is binding? It's not as if there is a lot of precedent to fall back on, so far as I know.
We don't have referendums Federally but we do have them within particular states and locally in towns. For example, where I live in New Jersey we recently voted down a bond for expanding schools to cover additional kids in our township. Not sure what's going to happen now because the state of New Jersey requires kids to be educated. So they'll have to make some arrangements to provide temporary classrooms. In the end, we'll wind up paying for it. I guess Brits will wind up paying for Brexit as well.
-
What's very confusing to me from this side of the pond is that parliament can stop Brexit legally by a vote. Yet, the referendum by non-binding vote of the people calls for Brexit. If it's so bad and parliament represents the people's wishes, and those wishes have changed, why don't they just shut it down?
Well, firstly it's not clear that people's minds have changed. There are various polls saying one thing or another but polls are not infallible as we have learned. Secondly, the referendum is described now by some as non binding but at the time people were told that their wish would be observed. However, it was not explained by anybody HOW it would be observed. So Johnson and Co voted against a soft Brexit but now call the ones voting against a hard Brexit "traitors".
The stupid thing is that this whole mess was supposed to clear up the problems caused by anti-EU elements in the Tory party but the outcome has been to make it all worse.
-
Well, firstly it's not clear that people's minds have changed. There are various polls saying one thing or another but polls are not infallible as we have learned. Secondly, the referendum is described now by some as non binding but at the time people were told that their wish would be observed. However, it was not explained by anybody HOW it would be observed. So Johnson and Co voted against a soft Brexit but now call the ones voting against a hard Brexit "traitors".
The stupid thing is that this whole mess was supposed to clear up the problems caused by anti-EU elements in the Tory party but the outcome has been to make it all worse.
Maybe they're afraid to vote and take the blame? How many want the PM to make the decision on his own?
In America, most people in Congress prefer the President to make decisions that take us into battle and war. They don't want to make the hard choices even though the Constitution requires Congress to declare war. It's not up to the president. Congressmen don't want to get blamed later and lose a re-election if it turns out bad. So over the years, they've given up more and more power to the president, turning him into a king. So we've gotten into more foreign adventures because of it that have hurt more than helped.
I wonder if that's what's happening with Brexit right now? How many ministers will claim later they were for it before they were against it or vice versus.
-
Funny that's what I think of you Europeans always knowing what's best for America.
Which is why I generally don't comment on US-only issues (even though I lived there for quite a while).
Your humility is not shared by some others. :)
-
This whole Brexit process may eventually clear some things up mainly inside Britain, but a lot of damage is done.
Economical damage- companies leaving Britain, not knowing what the future will bring and all the wasted political energy it has absorbed, leaving the country steerless for three years now.
This whole mess started with a referendum were Brexiteers shooted false arguments without a penalty and Remainers were not able to communicate the importance of being part of the EU.
Also in my country, the Netherlands, politicians are not able to explain the importance of the EU.
Somehow that seems as betraying your homeland; it is so much easier to be a true patriot.
Nobody will question you when you seem to be loyal to your nation, even if you spit enormous lies.
-
Your humility is not shared by some others. :)
It's not easy to be as perfect as me :-)
-
This whole Brexit process may eventually clear some things up mainly inside Britain, but a lot of damage is done.
Economical damage- companies leaving Britain, not knowing what the future will bring and all the wasted political energy it has absorbed, leaving the country steerless for three years now.
This whole mess started with a referendum were Brexiteers shooted false arguments without a penalty and Remainers were not able to communicate the importance of being part of the EU.
Also in my country, the Netherlands, politicians are not able to explain the importance of the EU.
Somehow that seems as betraying your homeland; it is so much easier to be a true patriot.
Nobody will question you when you seem to be loyal to your nation, even if you spit enormous lies.
Why can't they explain the importance? How is it important to you?
-
It's not easy to be as perfect as me :-)
Nor I.
-
The US strategy is working: send refugees to Europe. It shall disintegrate.
-
Why can't they explain the importance? How is it important to you?
It's difficult to explain the benefits of just in time supply chains to someone who voted Leave because of an experience with a rude Nigerian nurse. Really, it's a case of "the devil has all the best tunes".
-
Smart people stay in America.
-
We can use some more Mexican restaurants, or do you mean Americans fleeing the country?
We can always use some more smart people.
Careful, Bart. You're liable to get geniuses like Barbra Streisand and AOC. Seems to me I remember Barbra was going to leave the US if Trump were elected.
-
It's difficult to explain the benefits of just in time supply chains to someone who voted Leave because of an experience with a rude Nigerian nurse. Really, it's a case of "the devil has all the best tunes".
That is a great saying.
-
The stupid thing is that this whole mess was supposed to clear up the problems caused by anti-EU elements in the Tory party but the outcome has been to make it all worse.
Well, I suspect BoJo and his buddies have no intention of taking their latest setbacks lying down (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-debate-lying-down-boris-johnson-tories-ed-miliband-a9091156.html).
-
"Boris Johnson's bid for early UK election rejected"
So that means he has to go to the EU and beg for relief? What if they say Nein?
-
Go on the Internet and check in to BBC or France24.com or even Sky News, if you want detail.
They are covering it all very closely, and it is so sad to watch people on the right say things like the opposition being afraid to agree to an early general election. Both sides know the truth, spelled out ad nauseam, that the reason they refuse to undertake that election NOW is because it will allow no-deal Brexit to happen by default because the election will prevent time enough to do both the election and fight for a sensible exit deal. Equally sad is hearing them say that those who veto a no-deal exit are against an exit and trying to frustrate the result of the referendum.. Some are, but some not: the fight is over the manner of the exit, and the consequences of no deal, which everybody knows will render the UK a lost soul, kissing the Trump ass. As so many have pointed out, Mr T will do his best to screw that position to his trading advantage, and rightly so. It's Britain's responsibility to protect itself, not Mr T's.
Boris keeps talking about the progress his "deal" is (was) making in current Eiropean talks: the Europeans say they have been in no meaningful talks. The man knows neither truth nor shame.
From a slim majority of one, bought by May by bribing that Irish minority party to support her, he has blustered and fired colleagues until he now has a majority of minus forty-something I think it was, at last count, which is why he was forced this evening to attempt to call an election which is being refused for the chronological reasons explained above.
-
Lady Britain is now one capricious lady, or dare I say, a petulant brat, who simply doesn't know what she wants, and says "no" to whatever is in front of her. No to hard Brexit, no to agreed Brexit, no to soft border, no to hard border, no to leaving, no to staying, no to early election, no to yet another extension. It is painfully obvious to even a casual observer that another three-month extension is not going to solve anything, just prolong the agony. A sovereign state can not have a "soft" border with another sovereign state, when not in the same union. So, hard border with Ireland it is then, whatever the consequences.
But let's imagine the ideal scenario: after three months, an agreement is achieved. What exactly should be in such and ideal agreement, from a British perspective, of course. What do members of the parliament hope to achieve in January? Seems like a hopeless stalemate.
-
. . . the consequences of no deal, which everybody knows will render the UK a lost soul, kissing the Trump ass. As so many have pointed out, Mr T will do his best to screw that position to his trading advantage . . .
It pains me to admit it, but you may have a point. It's certainly true that President Trump has been following the politics of Brexit unusually closely. Just yesterday, he explained that the Irish backstop was where Vice President Mike Pence might have been forced to stay if there hadn't been enough rooms for his entourage at the Trump golf resort in Doonbeg.
-
For a change of pace, a lighter Brexit moment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwslRDTyzU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwslRDTyzU).
-
"I've got a baby." That line and image were pretty funny. :)
-
For a change of pace, a lighter Brexit moment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwslRDTyzU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwslRDTyzU).
Excellent, and why cartoons and similar can say things that words take too long to deliver and, that being the case, many who should be reading and learning cannot be bothered to finish reading, and thus miss the information.
Rob
-
Lady Britain is now one capricious lady, or dare I say, a petulant brat, who simply doesn't know what she wants, and says "no" to whatever is in front of her. No to hard Brexit, no to agreed Brexit, no to soft border, no to hard border, no to leaving, no to staying, no to early election, no to yet another extension. It is painfully obvious to even a casual observer that another three-month extension is not going to solve anything, just prolong the agony. A sovereign state can not have a "soft" border with another sovereign state, when not in the same union. So, hard border with Ireland it is then, whatever the consequences.
But let's imagine the ideal scenario: after three months, an agreement is achieved. What exactly should be in such and ideal agreement, from a British perspective, of course. What do members of the parliament hope to achieve in January? Seems like a hopeless stalemate.
On the face of it, you're right. But of course, it's far more complex, and well you know it.
You are again perfectly correct: "A sovereign state can not have a "soft" border with another sovereign state, when not in the same union. So, hard border with Ireland it is then, whatever the consequences."
That is why Europe cannot grant the removal of the Back-stop. And of course, Boris et al. know that as well as you do, and it's their aim to achieve just that pair of absolute divisions: first, with the rest of the Europeans and then, importantly, with Northern Ireland. I believe they hate the Irish - all Irish - just as much as they do the Scots. The ultimate break-up of the UK would give them the perfect Little England their hearts really crave.
On the face of it, one coud think that ruining the English economy would hurt them. Not a bit of it: when the pound falls the stock market figures rise. Why? because so much of the income to it comes from abroad, paid in dollars. The lower the value of the pound, the higher the figure coming in when converted from high dollar to low value pound.
So is there a catch? Yes. You have to have investments of your own abroad, not in your little grocery store or tobacconist/newspaper shop. How many in the UK hold those? And no, pension funds do not apply. Personal investment is what counts in this scenario. Your pension fund, that may provide a pension when you are old and worn out, if it doesn't fail first, does nothing for you when you have no job and are of working age.
-
But let's imagine the ideal scenario: after three months, an agreement is achieved. What exactly should be in such and ideal agreement, from a British perspective, of course. What do members of the parliament hope to achieve in January? Seems like a hopeless stalemate.
There was actually a series of "indicative" votes where MPs were given the opportunity to vote for a big range of options on what they would accept. None gained a majority. So what will happen? Heaven knows.
My guess - for what it's worth - is that there will be an election, Johnson will win, and he will then ram through a No Deal Brexit. What happens THEN? Don't want to think about it.
-
After three years of political debat, i think it is now time for the people to decide in a new referendum.
All in all, a lot of wasted time and energy.
-
There was actually a series of "indicative" votes where MPs were given the opportunity to vote for a big range of options on what they would accept. None gained a majority. So what will happen? Heaven knows.
My guess - for what it's worth - is that there will be an election, Johnson will win, and he will then ram through a No Deal Brexit. What happens THEN? Don't want to think about it.
The hope is that if they currently manage to make a no-deal brexit illegal, which I believe is the objective, then even a Boris victory at the next election would make it very hard for him to overturn that new law. I doubt that any party will win a massive overall majority again, at least not in the near future. That leaves room for inter-party agreements to stop the guy. Welcome, Britain, to the new Italy.
-
After three years of political debat, i think it is now time for the people to decide in a new referendum.
All in all, a lot of wasted time and energy.
As is a new referendum: what has the public learned? Nothing. Prejudices are cast in stone and nurtured at the family heath, just like football loyalties which, of course, are regarded as far more vital.
That's why a referendum is never a good idea. It places responsibility on the shoulders of people who, by and large, do not understand the politics and what drives the economy. How could they? That's why I claim that nobody who has not tried self-employment for at least a year understands the reality of any business, and how an economy functions in real life; it is not an academic exercise defined in learned books.
That's also why Parliament is having the trouble it is having: it is exposed to the realities of making a country tick every working day. It has the double problem of appealing to its base voters as well as, at the same time, keeping the country working and out of bankruptcy. The majority of those in Parliament realise the truth, and that's why they can't allow themselves to become implicit in a mass suicide. They just can't vote for it. They know that it would be easy to satisfy the 52% that voted leave, but they also know that putting their names to that, when the shit hits the fan and people go out of work, then those same people will turn on them and blame them, forgetting that those politicos just did what the people had asked them to do. The voter will never blame himself: it is always somebody else's fault. That's the nature of humanity.
-
The hope is that if they currently manage to make a no-deal brexit illegal...
That seems silly to me. How can you make something that happens by default illegal? Shouldn’t there be a vision of a deal before an absence of it is proclaimed “illegal”? In any negotiation, a no-deal is a perfectly valid option. In some textbooks on negotiations, it even has it own acronym: BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). Now, I understand that a good half of Britons consider Hard Brexit a WATNA, but still...
-
That seems silly to me. How can you make something that happens by default illegal? Shouldn’t there be a vision of a deal before an absence of it is proclaimed “illegal”? In any negotiation, a no-deal is a perfectly valid option. In some textbooks on negotiations, it even has it own acronym: BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). Now, I understand that a good half of Britons consider Hard Brexit a WATNA, but still...
That's kind of the problem. As you say, a good negotiator has a good BATNA. Johnson's idea is "give me what I want or I'll punch myself in the head".
-
As is a new referendum: what has the public learned? Nothing. Prejudices are cast in stone and nurtured at the family heath, just like football loyalties which, of course, are regarded as far more vital.
That's why a referendum is never a good idea. It places responsibility on the shoulders of people who, by and large, do not understand the politics and what drives the economy. How could they? That's why I claim that nobody who has not tried self-employment for at least a year understands the reality of any business, and how an economy functions in real life; it is not an academic exercise defined in learned books.
That's also why Parliament is having the trouble it is having: it is exposed to the realities of making a country tick every working day. It has the double problem of appealing to its base voters as well as, at the same time, keeping the country working and out of bankruptcy. The majority of those in Parliament realise the truth, and that's why they can't allow themselves to become implicit in a mass suicide. They just can't vote for it. They know that it would be easy to satisfy the 52% that voted leave, but they also know that putting their names to that, when the shit hits the fan and people go out of work, then those same people will turn on them and blame them, forgetting that those politicos just did what the people had asked them to do. The voter will never blame himself: it is always somebody else's fault. That's the nature of humanity.
I think a lot of the problem is the way this all happened. My understanding is that only parliament could decide to pull out of the EU. So how did a referendum happen? What law supported it? Aren;t there constitutional rules, in writing, that prevented it? If not, Britain needs a written constitution the government and the people have to abide by. Doing things on the fly only leads to confusion and gridlock.
-
I've probably written this before but the very idea that such a future-changing decision should be based on a one-time "50% + 1" referendum is ludicrous beyond belief. If you don't design the process well, nobody will respect it.
The situation seems so effed-up that it's hard not to be suspicious of anyone who still claims that a no-deal exit will be better for the UK, especially considering that the youth vote was overwhelmingly skewed to "remain".
In another universe, someone with some gravitas in government (not many of them left) could just hold up his hands in a "time-out" and say to everyone, 'Now hold on, this is messed up, let's just forget the whole thing ever happened, give ourselves another 5 years to come up with a better process and try again. I mean, if the long-term future of the country is at stake, what's another 5 years?'
It's pretty obvious to everyone by now that they are not ready to leave. I mean, how else can you interpret the recent insane shenanigans?
-
I've probably written this before but the very idea that such a future-changing decision should be based on a one-time "50% + 1" referendum is ludicrous beyond belief. If you don't design the process well, nobody will respect it.
The situation seems so effed-up that it's hard not to be suspicious of anyone who still claims that a no-deal exit will be better for the UK, especially considering that the youth vote was overwhelmingly skewed to "remain".
In another universe, someone with some gravitas in government (not many of them left) could just hold up his hands in a "time-out" and say to everyone, 'Now hold on, this is messed up, let's just forget the whole thing ever happened, give ourselves another 5 years to come up with a better process and try again. I mean, if the long-term future of the country is at stake, what's another 5 years?'
It's pretty obvious to everyone by now that they are not ready to leave. I mean, how else can you interpret the recent insane shenanigans?
Power politics???
-
Pence strikes out in Ireland https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/mike-pence-irish-media_n_5d70bee2e4b0cdfe057aeee9 (https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/mike-pence-irish-media_n_5d70bee2e4b0cdfe057aeee9).
Maybe he should have stayed home.
-
Another conundrum in the theater of absurd: we outlaw a no-deal Brexit, but, at the same time, we do not want an early election, which would be as close a proxy for a second referendum as possible.
In other words, for those clamoring for a second referendum, wouldn’t an early election be a good substitute?
By the way, how many times Britain can postpone the leave date? How many time would Europe agree?
-
Another conundrum in the theater of absurd: we outlaw a no-deal Brexit, but, at the same time, we do not want an early election, which would be as close a proxy for a second referendum as possible.
In other words, for those clamoring for a second referendum, wouldn’t an early election be a good substitute?
By the way, how many times Britain can postpone the leave date? How many time would Europe agree?
The EU already said that nothing much is going to change from their end if this things is delayed again. Maybe they'll sweeten the deal just a little to get the damn thing done already. I think they had it with those pesky Brits. This things never ends like US elections. :)
-
In other words, for those clamoring for a second referendum, wouldn’t an early election be a good substitute?
It woukd maybe, but the problem is that trust in BJ is so low that nobody believes he won't take the opportunity to change the election date till after Nov 1 and thus leave with no deal.
Or as the Sun puts it - no doubt offensively...
-
So extend the leave date until after the election.
-
...Or as the Sun puts it - no doubt offensively...
Or just another case of premature evacuation ;)
-
Apparently, it's not all in the family.
"Boris Johnson's Brother Resigns From U.K. Parliament Over Brexit"
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/05/757888779/boris-johnsons-brother-resigns-from-u-k-parliament-over-brexit (https://www.npr.org/2019/09/05/757888779/boris-johnsons-brother-resigns-from-u-k-parliament-over-brexit)
-
With Germany in near recession, this is a good time for making a post-Brexit trade deal with the EU. German car manufacturers are on their heels. So is other German industry. The EU will have to treat Britain fairly if they want to sell their stuff to them. If Britain makes a trade deal with the US quickly, we can use our joint pressure as even more leverage to help both our countries in trading with the rest of the EU. Of course the Brits have to stop squabbling with themselves first, and get on with it, before they shoot themselves in the foot.
"Eurozone crisis: Germany economy crippling with manufacturing industry facing collapse"
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1174459/Eurozone-news-germany-economy-angela-merkel-trade-war-ECB-china-trump-brexit (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1174459/Eurozone-news-germany-economy-angela-merkel-trade-war-ECB-china-trump-brexit)
-
With Germany in near recession, this is a good time for making a post-Brexit trade deal with the EU. German car manufacturers are on their heels. So is other German industry. The EU will have to treat Britain fairly if they want to sell their stuff to them. If Britain makes a trade deal with the US quickly, we can use our joint pressure as even more leverage to help both our countries in trading with the rest of the EU. Of course the Brits have to stop squabbling with themselves first, and get on with it, before they shoot themselves in the foot.
"Eurozone crisis: Germany economy crippling with manufacturing industry facing collapse"
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1174459/Eurozone-news-germany-economy-angela-merkel-trade-war-ECB-china-trump-brexit (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1174459/Eurozone-news-germany-economy-angela-merkel-trade-war-ECB-china-trump-brexit)
Alan - if the Express says that the grass is green I go to the window to check.
As for a trade deal, we don't want US food or opioids thanks.
-
Alan - if the Express says that the grass is green I go to the window to check.
As for a trade deal, we don't want US food or opioids thanks.
+1
As I recall, wasn't it America that has been tying to bankrupt European car makers with fines for inaccurate emissions statements? A little bit of a sense of proportion would come in handy; who, in the US, last measured GM at al. with such dedicated scrutiny? Other than Nader, I mean; and recently?
Strikes me that the US business sense of fair play - cute olde-worlde concept - consists of annihilation of any competion rather than defending that other olde-worlde concept: level playing fields (for ever, as the Beatles might have added).
-
Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. America might be the only friend you have after Brexit. If you want fair play, let's get rid of tariffs on all sides.
-
... As for a trade deal, we don't want US food or opioids thanks.
Opioids are like lawyers or dentists: you hate them until you need them.
-
who, in the US, last measured GM at al. with such dedicated scrutiny? Other than Nader, I mean; and recently?
The federal Environmental Protection Agency (https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/all-epa-emission-standards) and the California Air Resources Board (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/topics/clean-cars).
-
Would it make a difference for the better if Corbyn would step down?
-
Would it make a difference for the better if Corbyn would step down?
Not really; the party is like the other big one: split asunder. Yes, on the one hand it might mean some Tories crossing over, but I think the cultural differences are set in stone. I think the only thing that may help is a massive shift to the Libs, but then the only thing I think that will attract some new voters is their refusal to countenance any Brexit at all. It would do it for me. If the many millions who voted remain voted Lib, then matter resolved at one stroke. But as I and a million plus expats were not allowed to vote on the matter of Brexit - which side figured that bright one out? - maybe the system is so fixed that nothing much matters anymore.
-
Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. America might be the only friend you have after Brexit. If you want fair play, let's get rid of tariffs on all sides.
So let me get this straight. You've been in favour of Brexit from the start, but now you think that it will isolate the UK. So what was so good about exiting?
-
Not really; the party is like the other big one: split asunder. Yes, on the one hand it might mean some Tories crossing over, but I think the cultural differences are set in stone. I think the only thing that may help is a massive shift to the Libs, but then the only thing I think that will attract some new voters is their refusal to countenance any Brexit at all. It would do it for me. If the many millions who voted remain voted Lib, then matter resolved at one stroke. But as I and a million plus expats were not allowed to vote on the matter of Brexit - which side figured that bright one out? - maybe the system is so fixed that nothing much matters anymore.
Are you telling me expats, being British citizens, could not vote in the Brexit referendum?
-
Would it make a difference for the better if Corbyn would step down?
Why would it?
-
Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. America might be the only friend you have after Brexit. If you want fair play, let's get rid of tariffs on all sides.
But we don't want or need anything you have to sell.
-
So let me get this straight. You've been in favour of Brexit from the start, but now you think that it will isolate the UK. So what was so good about exiting?
My country has imposed tariffs on China. These are hurting us. However, it's part of a battle we hope to win that have more important long-term consequences of stopping them from stealing our intellectual property and dealing with us in a more fair way. So I'm willing to take the hit for a higher purpose.
Likewise, my position on regarding Brexit was that I couldn't see America being run politically by gnomes in another country. Why would I want foreigners making laws I have to abide with in my country? My freedoms, political and personal, and independence are more important than making a few extra bucks. I also said that while there would be hardships for Britain, many countries currently including the US are not in the EU. However, we have very good trade relations with Europe. There's no reason Britain couldn;t do the same. Of course, I don;t vote in Britain and I'm not British. So it's their decision to make.
-
But we don't want or need anything you have to sell.
So then you shouldn;t have any problem dropping all tariffs on our goods and allowing the import of all our stuff.
-
Are you telling me expats, being British citizens, could not vote in the Brexit referendum?
correct
-
correct
What is an expatriate? How does the government know you are one? Does Britain have mail-in voting?
-
correct
Not.
-
So then you shouldn;t have any problem dropping all tariffs on our goods and allowing the import of all our stuff.
Unfortunately there is a short term effect where people buy cheap crap which results in higher quality local producers going bust and removal of choice. Thus the market needs correction in This case with tariffs.
-
Not.
Expats of less than 15 years could vote. So we are both right. And wrong
-
Expats of less than 15 years could vote. So we are both right. And wrong
Something like that. I remember Jeremy Roussak explained it in more legal terms, but it boils down to this (if my memory serves me right): if you didn't bother to vote on other issues in the last 15 years, it is presumed (rightly or wrongly) you lost your interest in voting. Just another "use it or lose it" example.
-
Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. America might be the only friend you have after Brexit. If you want fair play, let's get rid of tariffs on all sides.
That is breathtakingly simplistic. About tariffs, I mean. The first bit could wll be true: why would Oz, New Zealand and others feel kindly towards GB? Memory is long - even if not always for names.
I heard a good one today on the France 24 network: it was a quotation from somebody I knew about but whose name I can't summon right now (lifelong problem): "America is the vulture waiting for Britain to collapse in order to eat it." It came during the regular Friday evening slot where they run through the big stories of the week, and was with reference to the US stance - and current encouragement - for GB to disown its best market - Europe - for the never never promises of you-know-who. Assisted suicide; kinda fits the quotation, don't you think?
Once upon a time, people would have thought very different thoughts about the transatlantic cousins.
A shame what leading political personalities can do to countries and their international relationships.
-
... One Irish Times columnist concluded that the vice-president, a “much-anticipated visitor”, turned out to have “shat on the … carpet”...
In other words, he pissed off the Irish. How is that even possible!? Aren't the Irish in a constant pissed-off state? ;)
-
That is breathtakingly simplistic. About tariffs, I mean. The first bit could wll be true: why would Oz, New Zealand and others feel kindly towards GB? Memory is long - even if not always for names.
I heard a good one today on the France 24 network: it was a quotation from somebody I knew about but whose name I can't summon right now (lifelong problem): "America is the vulture waiting for Britain to collapse in order to eat it." It came during the regular Friday evening slot where they run through the big stories of the week, and was with reference to the US stance - and current encouragement - for GB to disown its best market - Europe - for the never never promises of you-know-who. Assisted suicide; kinda fits the quotation, don't you think?
Once upon a time, people would have thought very different thoughts about the transatlantic cousins.
A shame what leading political personalities can do to countries and their international relationships.
Trump is a tough negotiator and will squeeze out the best he can, that's true. I don't envy your position.
-
However, the mess you have with your health insurance, something I don't envy either, is not America's or Trump's doing, but rather your own government's policies. You can't blame us.
-
Trump is a tough negotiator and will squeeze out the best he can, that's true. I don't envy your position.
Trump is a tough negotiator? What? Not sure the North Koreans think so.
"I don't envy your position." They're in the position BECAUSE of Brexit, of which you were in favour. And please don't repeat the silly homilies about other countries controlling your laws, it was never true, it's just your fake news.
-
Trump is a tough negotiator? What? Not sure the North Koreans think so.
"I don't envy your position." They're in the position BECAUSE of Brexit, of which you were in favour. And please don't repeat the silly homilies about other countries controlling your laws, it was never true, it's just your fake news.
If you feel that way, you should be ready to start trade negotiations immediately.
-
Unfortunately there is a short term effect where people buy cheap crap which results in higher quality local producers going bust and removal of choice. Thus the market needs correction in This case with tariffs.
So you agree with Trump?
-
So you agree with Trump?
Errr no - that doesn't follow from what i said. I said that the failure of the market requires intervention from the state.
-
Are you telling me expats, being British citizens, could not vote in the Brexit referendum?
Exactly.
-
However, the mess you have with your health insurance, something I don't envy either, is not America's or Trump's doing, but rather your own government's policies. You can't blame us.
Nobody is blaming anyobody except some British politicians and some very short-sighted, unimaginative voters in said country.
That said, if Boris survives this, and goes ahead with his Americanisation of our health services, then we will do just that. I'll tell you something else: if he goes ahead with that, there will be blood running on British streets. It is the single thing upon which we all agree upon because we all have benefitted from it and had services we could not afford, individually, to buy. Private health insurance is prohibitively expensive. Only a relatively small section of the land can buy it in a form that would be worth having. Consult your own story.
-
Well, seen from afar (I'm sitting in the sunshine listening to the wind in the trees in Greece) it's all got quite interesting. Bozo's latest threat to break the law by not requesting an extension. His ckeeky chappy comedy mask seems to have slipped a bit and the ugly disaster capitalist peeped out!
-
Well, seen from afar (I'm sitting in the sunshine listening to the wind in the trees in Greece) it's all got quite interesting. Bozo's latest threat to break the law by not requesting an extension. His ckeeky chappy comedy mask seems to have slipped a bit and the ugly disaster capitalist peeped out!
“Disaster Capitalist.” ;D That’s quite good, and altogether accurate, at least for our guy in the States.
-
Errr no - that doesn't follow from what i said. I said that the failure of the market requires intervention from the state.
Well the free market failed. So Trump, the State, intervened with tariffs. So Trump is doing what you recommended.
-
Nobody is blaming anyobody except some British politicians and some very short-sighted, unimaginative voters in said country.
That said, if Boris survives this, and goes ahead with his Americanisation of our health services, then we will do just that. I'll tell you something else: if he goes ahead with that, there will be blood running on British streets. It is the single thing upon which we all agree upon because we all have benefitted from it and had services we could not afford, individually, to buy. Private health insurance is prohibitively expensive. Only a relatively small section of the land can buy it in a form that would be worth having. Consult your own story.
Well, I hope you keep your health care. I couldn't afford to buy 100% private health care now that I am on Medicare. I pay for a small secondary insurance that subsidizes Medicare coverage. But it's pretty cheap.
Once the government takes over, it's pretty hard to go back to private. What exactly is Boris wanting to do with health care? I'm not familiar with the issue over there. I know you're going to be hurt because you live in Spain out of GB. What else? As a side note, my friend, now passed, had to move back to the US from Brazil where he married a local from Sao Paulo. He couldn't afford the $3000 in prescriptions he needed for his heart that it cost him there. He owned an apartment and everything there, was very well situated. So he moved back to NY to get back on Medicare or private insurance through his wife who got a job with a bank here. His wife, a really nice lady, became an American citizen and still lives here.
-
That was $3000 in prescriptions, per month!!
-
Are you telling me expats, being British citizens, could not vote in the Brexit referendum?
Only a certain category of expats couldn’t:
-
That was $3000 in prescriptions, per month!!
I don't know the cost of my pills; as of the first of this year, the Spanish state removed all charges for pensioners, and we only paid a miniscule, token fogue anyway. They look after family and still value their old. They do have a serious problem with male violence towards women. First, I guess, you have to wean them off bullfighting, which I think is happening.
That monthly cost, plus any hospital visits - which seem to be becoming regular events - explains the why of my state of mild personal panic if this mess turns out as a no-dealer. The harm to the younger generations is something else over which I apoarently have no say.
Regarding the point Slobodan has been making about us expats not getting to vote on Brexit: many of us are pensioners with the de rigueur health problems that time of life signifies. Living elsewhere than within the UK saves that country a small fortune, even though I believe there is/was going to be, in the case of an exit with an agreed deal, a UK annual contribution to health to whichever member country within which Brit expats found themselves in residence at the time of separation. I think it was to be around £3000 per skull, which probably wouldn't have paid for the cost of one cataract operation, never mind the set of two. Pretty much everyone of any venerable age hits that one.
Regarding the voting rights in UK elections after fifteen years of absence: I can see a certain sense in that measure, if only because the local scene about which one usually casts the vote, changes, and you can lose touch. Equally, though I have the right to vote on local Spanish elections, I never exercise that right: I have never felt that it's my moral right to do so, regardless of the legality. Also, local issues are probably only half-understood at best.
However, you never lose your nationality. Things such as Brexit are not local or temporary matters, where the staus quo can be changed after five years. It's a unique event that radically alters your entire life for as far ahead as anyone can reasonably see - or certainly longer than people of my age expect to live. Folks go ballistic about terrorists being stripped of their UK nationality if they have a double one; yet, yet, people like myself who have paid all their taxes and national insurance contributions in full, can get kicked into limbo. Cool.
-
This is why we should stop giving government power over our lives. Instead of we being in charge of making life and death decisions over our health, we've turned it off st to bureaucrats who don't care a whit deciding.
Next loss is a cutback in Social Security and national pension payments as the government runs out of money. Or they'll print more just devaluing the value of the currency they give you. You would have been better off keeping more money, having lower taxes, and then investing for yourself. Also when you die, you could leave that money to your children. Now the government keeps it. This is Democratic Socialism at work. You can keep it.
-
If you feel that way, you should be ready to start trade negotiations immediately.
Seriously? This is your response?
-
This is why we should stop giving government power over our lives. Instead of we being in charge of making life and death decisions over our health, we've turned it off st to bureaucrats who don't care a whit deciding.
As opposed to giving actuaries charged with ensuring a profit life and death decisions over our health?? I can give you a ton of solid arguments for private health insurance; That they care more about you than a government entity would ain’t one of them ;)
-
I think it's interesting that in spite of knocking the American health care system again and again, when he needed heart surgery and his life depended on getting it quickly, Mick Jagger came to the U.S., so he could continue to live. Talk's cheap until death looks you in the face.
-
Seriously? This is your response?
Well, Bob, you're the one who said Trump was not a tough negotiator with the North Koreans. If you feel that way, then you should expect Britain to get a great deal from him as well. Therefore, you should be happy to start trade negotiations with America as soon as possible.
-
As opposed to giving actuaries charged with ensuring a profit life and death decisions over our health?? I can give you a ton of solid arguments for private health insurance; That they care more about you than a government entity would ain’t one of them ;)
That's not the point I was making. WIth government, you don;t have a choice. You're stuck with whatever they want to do. With Medicare, many the best doctors I can;t go to because they've opted out of Medicare. On the other hand, private insurers would cover them at least to the extent of whatever insurance plan I purchased. Ask Rob about how he might lose his only health plan with the government or need to move because of an inane government plan. Nothing we buy is perfect whether it's food, a car, or health care. But we have choice. If we're not happy, we can change who we buy from. Sellers and providers are not immune to losing customers if they treat them badly. That's what competition does. But when the government treats you badly, and eventually they always do, you're stuck. Ask the Veterans who have to go to the VA for medical care.
You didn't mention the other part of my post, the part about Social Security and government pensions. Again, no choice. If we could keep our money and decide where to invest, I think we'd be better off. You'd have more money in retirement if you just bought safe US Treasury bonds all your life. Plus, if we die before retirement, our families would get an inheritance of the value of those savings. Now the government keeps all that money we and our employers gave them our entire lives.
It's a philosophy. Do you want a little more safety and lose liberty? Or would you keep your freedom and live with more risk in life? The Venezuelans decided on the first. Now they have neither safety nor liberty.
-
I think it's interesting that in spite of knocking the American health care system again and again, when he needed heart surgery and his life depended on getting it quickly, Mick Jagger came to the U.S., so he could continue to live. Talk's cheap until death looks you in the face.
^^^
Quality goes down with lack of competition and free markets. Who here thinks the Soviets made the best cameras?
-
... Social Security and government pensions. Again, no choice. If we could keep our money and decide where to invest, I think we'd be better off. You'd have more money in retirement if you just bought safe US Treasury bonds all your life. Plus, if we die before retirement, our families would get an inheritance of the value of those savings. Now the government keeps all that money we and our employers gave them our entire lives...
It is a bit more nuanced than that. I see your points, and they are valid ones, in general. But there are some big IFs implied: IF you keep your money and IF you invest it wisely. Getting to a retirement age and finding out you didn't is too late. It is hard for young people to have such willpower and wisdom to set aside 12% of every check and never dip into it in times of crisis. It is also hard to resist the call to invest in stocks in times when everybody and his uncle is making big bucks in the stock market, only to find yourself in 2008 when stocks lost 80% and your time to retire has just come up.
I am generally in agreement with your overall philosophy of personal responsibility and risk-taking. However, it is one thing to punish a young person for foolish financial decisions... there is time for them to learn from their mistakes and recover from it. Not so when you are about retirement age. At that time, and in particular later, there is nothing they could do to recover.
It is easy to say let them rot, it is their fault. But do we really want to see new hordes of homeless old people on the streets? Or should we let them out in the cold, for passing polar bears to find them, when their teeth can not chew seal hide anymore? Not so long ago, maybe 100+ years ago, in the mountainous regions in my country, they would take old people out, put a bread on top of their head and the whole village would stone them to death, as they couldn't pull their own weight anymore.
The level of civilization of a society is measured, among other things, by how they treat their old. Social Security benefits are hardly sufficient even for the most modest living, and hardly going to make anyone rich. They are the absolute floor.
In my particular case, if I did what you suggested, I would have ended up with cash savings worth the next 8-10 years of retirement. My parents and grandparents lived well into their 80s. I hope I have their genes. If so, I would run out of savings somewhere half-way. And then what?
-
It is a bit more nuanced than that. I see your points, and they are valid ones, in general. But there are some big IFs implied: IF you keep your money and IF you invest it wisely. Getting to a retirement age and finding out you didn't is too late. It is hard for young people to have such willpower and wisdom to set aside 12% of every check and never dip into it in times of crisis. It is also hard to resist the call to invest in stocks in times when everybody and his uncle is making big bucks in the stock market, only to find yourself in 2008 when stocks lost 80% and your time to retire has just come up.
I am generally in agreement with your overall philosophy of personal responsibility and risk-taking. However, it is one thing to punish a young person for foolish financial decisions... there is time for them to learn from their mistakes and recover from it. Not so when you are about retirement age. At that time, and in particular later, there is nothing they could do to recover.
It is easy to say let them rot, it is their fault. But do we really want to see new hordes of homeless old people on the streets? Or should we let them out in the cold, for passing polar bears to find them, when their teeth can not chew seal hide anymore? Not so long ago, maybe 100+ years ago, in the mountainous regions in my country, they would take old people out, put a bread on top of their head and the whole village would stone them to death, as they couldn't pull their own weight anymore.
The level of civilization of a society is measured, among other things, by how they treat their old. Social Security benefits are hardly sufficient even for the most modest living, and hardly going to make anyone rich. They are the absolute floor.
In my particular case, if I did what you suggested, I would have ended up with cash savings worth the next 8-10 years of retirement. My parents and grandparents lived well into their 80s. I hope I have their genes. If so, I would run out of savings somewhere half-way. And then what?
Gosh. I agree :-)
except ... 12% of your pay check doesn’t buy much security if your pay is low.
-
So set up mandatory private retirement plans with the
ownership remaining with the individual instead of a greedy government.
That way, if the guy dies, the money will go to it his inheritors and not stay with the government. Also he'll have more money probably available in retirement then he'll get with Social Security. The average social security check is only $1,500.
-
Gosh. I agree :-)
except ... 12% of your pay check doesn’t buy much security if your pay is low.
Social Security payments are based on what you earn during your lifetime in any case. So if you didn't earn very much to begin with, your social security check is going to be tiny.
-
So set up mandatory private retirement plans with the
ownership remaining with the individual instead of a greedy government...
That would dery the very essence of insurance: spreading (averaging) the risk. Besides, we already have IRAs, 401ks, ROTHs, etc., private retirements plans. Social Security is the last safety net.
-
Mandatory.
-
Back to Brexit:
(Sorry, do not have any other link to this graph)
-
It is a bit more nuanced than that. I see your points, and they are valid ones, in general. But there are some big IFs implied: IF you keep your money and IF you invest it wisely. Getting to a retirement age and finding out you didn't is too late. It is hard for young people to have such willpower and wisdom to set aside 12% of every check and never dip into it in times of crisis. It is also hard to resist the call to invest in stocks in times when everybody and his uncle is making big bucks in the stock market, only to find yourself in 2008 when stocks lost 80% and your time to retire has just come up.
I am generally in agreement with your overall philosophy of personal responsibility and risk-taking. However, it is one thing to punish a young person for foolish financial decisions... there is time for them to learn from their mistakes and recover from it. Not so when you are about retirement age. At that time, and in particular later, there is nothing they could do to recover.
It is easy to say let them rot, it is their fault. But do we really want to see new hordes of homeless old people on the streets? Or should we let them out in the cold, for passing polar bears to find them, when their teeth can not chew seal hide anymore? Not so long ago, maybe 100+ years ago, in the mountainous regions in my country, they would take old people out, put a bread on top of their head and the whole village would stone them to death, as they couldn't pull their own weight anymore.
The level of civilization of a society is measured, among other things, by how they treat their old. Social Security benefits are hardly sufficient even for the most modest living, and hardly going to make anyone rich. They are the absolute floor.
In my particular case, if I did what you suggested, I would have ended up with cash savings worth the next 8-10 years of retirement. My parents and grandparents lived well into their 80s. I hope I have their genes. If so, I would run out of savings somewhere half-way. And then what?
Thoughtful post. Difficult to fault much of it, and I have to add that saving even 20% of my earnings wouldn't have kept up with the cost of private medical insurance. The argument forgets little niceties such as income tax, tax on "unearned" income, the "seven fat and seven lean years" cycles of self-employment, and inflation. I did manage to pony up for many years of private health insurance our here in Spain and it was a very good deal in terms of what they gave us - Mapfre was the company - for as long as I could face that premium.
Age knocks the wheels off your plans, as do technical changes in the way life works: anyone forgotten the impact of digital on prices of stock photography? There was no way to fight that one off: so much work turned into worthless junk. The pound never really recovered from 2008 and Brexit has seen a further 20% minimum drop in its value out here. Only the very rich or those with ironclad state pensions can lean back in their rocker, sip another margarita and not grow more creases on their brow. Was a time in the 80s when we were able to clear fifteen percent minimum interest in offshore, legally.
If you live near marinas you will notice that a lot of boats go up for sale as people age, even those with crew. Priorities reach out to the wealthy as well. Your investments need your personal attention or you end up at the mercy of other people for whom you get further and further back on their rows of burners.
-
Back to Brexit:
(Sorry, do not have any other link to this graph)
Isn't it funny how that works! Perhaps now some 'teers will catch the Donald drift, and why he encourages our crazies to jump off the cliff with the rest of us chained to them! And hey, they still won't see it.
Ironic, isn't it, that little olde Britain was supposed to be the beneficiary, not the States!
As I often feel compelled to mention, you couldn't make it up.
-
... saving even 20% of my earnings...
Just to clarify, the 12% in my post above is the combined, mandatory Social Security contribution, split between employee and employer (i.e., 6% each). If you are self employed, you pay yourself the whole 12% (12.4% currently).
And yes, of course, I, as many others, voluntarily save for retirement in addition to that, via tax-free IRA (Individual Retirement Account), 401k, etc., or in taxable savings and investment accounts.
-
^^^
Quality goes down with lack of competition and free markets. Who here thinks the Soviets made the best cameras?
Which cameras are manufactured in the US?
-
I think it's interesting that in spite of knocking the American health care system again and again, when he needed heart surgery and his life depended on getting it quickly, Mick Jagger came to the U.S., so he could continue to live. Talk's cheap until death looks you in the face.
That's a different thing - probably few doubt that if you can afford it you can obtain the best treatment in the US. That's not the same as having a good health care system for the non-multi-millionaires.
-
That's a different thing - probably few doubt that if you can afford it you can obtain the best treatment in the US. That's not the same as having a good health care system for the non-multi-millionaires.
Or not seriously ill ;)
-
Which cameras are manufactured in the US?
None. We can't be competitive and produce quality cameras. Same with health insurance. If a company can't be competitive and produce quality health insurance, they'll lose customers and go out of business. You've confirmed my point.
-
That's a different thing - probably few doubt that if you can afford it you can obtain the best treatment in the US. That's not the same as having a good health care system for the non-multi-millionaires.
But you were the one who was saying that Europe provides the best of care not America. Now you're acknowledging that America provides the best of care exactly what we've been saying all along.
Additionally that best of care is available to the average person who doesn't have the wealth like Jagger because they are covered with health insurance, Private health insurance.
Of course once the government takes over, the best doctors opt out of that program such as on government Medicare, and the average guy loses the advantage of those best doctors. So on two scores you're proving the point that is better to have competitive private insurance not single Source government insurance.
-
The myth of "the best doctors". You can read all about them in in-flight magazines.
-
The myth of "the best doctors". You can read all about them in in-flight magazines.
It's not a myth. Surveys have shown that hospitals that have surgeons who do more surgeries of a particular type have a better success rate and less death of patients.
would you choose a surgeon who does the procedure once a week or surgeon who does it three times a day?
-
It's not a myth. Surveys have shown that hospitals that have surgeons who do more surgeries of a particular type have a better success rate and less death of patients. would you choose a surgeon who does the procedure once a week or surgeon who does it three times a day?
How many surgeons at how many hospitals did you personally interview before your cancer and heart surgeries? Did you ask them how many of your particular procedure they performed a day and what their complication statistics were? Did you personally interview the anesthesiologists and teams of nurses too? How do you know your doctors were the "best" available? Everybody thinks his doctor is among the best. It's nonsense. There are thousands and thousands of great doctors.
-
But you were the one who was saying that Europe provides the best of care not America. Now you're acknowledging that America provides the best of care exactly what we've been saying all along.
No, I'm saying that the best health care can be bought in the US. That's not the same as the US providing the best health care.
But Im not discussing this further on a Brexit thread.
-
No, I'm saying that the best health care can be bought in the US. That's not the same as the US providing the best health care.
But Im not discussing this further on a Brexit thread.
Why not? The issue of loss of healthcare for Brits if there's a Brexit is a major issue regarding leaving the EU. Understanding how you got there seems important to me and should be to BRits. It's also a lesson for Americans who try to do health care similarly as Britain. So readers of this thread who are American should pay attention to the difficulties you're facing because you have a government run health care system. It would be folly for us to do the same.
There's also the argument that America wants to do something about British Health Care system if there's a Brexit although I'm not yet familiar what the second issue is about. Maybe you can educate me. Certainly that has to do with Brexit decisions as well.
-
No, I'm saying that the best health care can be bought in the US. That's not the same as the US providing the best health care.
But Im not discussing this further on a Brexit thread.
Frankly, considering the absolute lack of comprehension we meet, you are absolutely right, whether a Brexit thread or otherwise: all you and I get back are repeated mantras based on brainwashing and flawed logic blended into non sequiturs.
It's like discusding religion with a staunch believer - of any of the prescribed options readily available on the soul market.
Better be as I am, and have a personalized version that seems to be borne out by life experiences.
:-)
-
Ok... since Rob shared his experience with the Spanish health care, I thought I'd share mine.
The Good
I had appendicitis while in Barcelona, at the tender age of forty something. Presented that late, it is less abrupt and painful, so it took days to diagnose and by the time I ended up in a hospital, it perforated, so I had to spend a week in the hospital after the operation, on antibiotics (it is usually a two-day affair otherwise). A couple of weeks later, I got a bill in mail: 1,700 euros! For the operation and a week in hospital! A couple of years later, in the US, a late-night scare with my kid in the emergency room ended up costing $2,000 ($100 out of pocket, the rest covered by insurance), even though it was just a stomach flu and not much testing or intervention. Even more recently, a visit to the ER for stitches and x-rays (after a fainting spell) cost $20,000 dollars ($5,000 out of pocket this time). Back to the Spanish bill. After itemizing charges, at the bottom it read: "This is not a bill - for your information only." Sweet!
The Not So Good
My kid, in kindergarten then, had most of her baby teeth rotten by excessive drinking or sweet apple juice that her mother was giving her to induce her to sleep faster. It was an esthetic issue, but also I was not sure if the cavities posed a health threat otherwise. Went to a public hospital first. They told me they'd be happy to pull all her teeth out under a general anesthesia. I freaked out. General anesthesia is, statistically, a rather safe procedure, but still not without risk. A kid in Chicago recently died during a dental procedure even under a local anesthesia. So I asked around. Finally ended up with a private pediatric dentist. She said, instead of pulling them all out, she will repair them all with fillings. The reason? Keeping the baby teeth in place would preserve the proper space for the permanent teeth. Of course, filling them all was expensive, 1,000 euros, but the good thing was that my kid never needed braces later on. Anesthesia? Forget it, she said, we are going to go slow. The first two (paid) session she did absolutely no work, just letting my daughter play with the instruments, sit in the chair, etc. The idea was, the doctor said, to get kids used to dentists and procedures. If they get spooked at that age, they would carry it for the rest of their lives.
-
How many surgeons at how many hospitals did you personally interview before your cancer and heart surgeries? Did you ask them how many of your particular procedure they performed a day and what their complication statistics were? Did you personally interview the anesthesiologists and teams of nurses too? How do you know your doctors were the "best" available? Everybody thinks his doctor is among the best. It's nonsense. There are thousands and thousands of great doctors.
It's not only the doctor but the hospital. The best hospitals get the best doctors. Teaching hospitals are usually better too since they're training new doctors at their associate medical schools. They also do the most procedures so they have the most experience. For my heart, I went to NY Presbyterian (formerly Columbia Presbyterian) the #4 hospital for bypass heart surgery in the USA, #5 hospital overall in the country. NY Presbyterian is associated with Columbia and Cornell Medical College in NYC. Fortunately, I live an hour away by car. I picked my cardiologist who I had been seeing for about three years. He is associated with this hospital and had his office a floor below the surgical wing. He selected my surgeon, a Japanese who does 2-3 open heart surgeries a day. I trusted my cardiologist to select the best surgeon for me. He squeezed me in for the surgery 6 days later and kept me in their heart wing under a EKG monitor (blue tooth) until the operation. Their heart wing is the latest technology and really great and thorough staff. I definitely would recommend this hospital for heart surgery if God forbid anyone needs it. I thank God I'm still alive and seem to be doing well in recovery. Of course there's no guarantees in life.
I agree it's hard to select a good doctor. But as I said, you can check where they're affiliated with and check publications. Get a doctor who's affiliated with a teaching hospitals. They're the most up-to-date in equipment and procedures and research. Then if you need surgery, they know the better surgeons and can get you in. Of course, if you live away from the larger cities, it's hard to find better facilities and doctors who have as much experience. By the way, I reported here in another post that the guy in the bed next to me was a homeless person who was getting heart surgery for free. So the hospital doesn't just treat people like me under Medicare, or a money-is-no-object Jagger type, but everyone.
Here's a rating link showing NY Presbyterian. https://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/ny/new-york-presbyterian-university-hospital-of-columbia-and-cornell-6210024/heart-bypass-surgery (https://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/ny/new-york-presbyterian-university-hospital-of-columbia-and-cornell-6210024/heart-bypass-surgery)
Here's a general list https://www.usnews.com/info/blogs/press-room/articles/2019-07-30/us-news-releases-30th-annual-2019-20-best-hospitals-rankings (https://www.usnews.com/info/blogs/press-room/articles/2019-07-30/us-news-releases-30th-annual-2019-20-best-hospitals-rankings)
-
I trusted my cardiologist to select the best surgeon for me.
Like everybody else. Fortunately, he accepted Medicare, unlike the "best" doctors you have been blathering on about.
-
Like everybody else. Fortunately, he accepted Medicare, unlike the "best" doctors you have been blathering on about.
But if your specialist is affiliated with a less experienced hospital with less quantities of procedures, the surgeon he recommends won;t be as experienced or accomplished. Surgery especially is a numbers game. It's an eye-hand coordination thing. Like photography :) You get better with experience. Plus, the hospitals won't take average doctors or surgeons but those who were best in the medical class with solid experience. The hospitals want the best to protect their reputations.
Regarding Medicare, I've been burned at the Hospital for Special Surgery in NYC, the #1 hospital for orthopedics in the USA. The doctor I went to there did not take Medicare and I had to pay 100% of the bill. I had to drop him. I learned my lesson. Now the first question I ask is do you take Medicare? So the fact is, Medicare does limit my choices of the best. FOrtunately, NY Presbyterian doesn;t limit access if you're only covered with Medicare. So I'm fortunate. But if I need back surgery, I won;t be able to use Hospital for Special Surgery, or at least limit my selection of surgeons and doctors. Now my daughter did have back surgery at that Hospital. But being younger and not on Medicare, she had private health insurance that picked up the surgeon and hospital costs less deductibles. It's only when you have government sponsored Medicare that you get screwed. My suggestion is stay well all your life and then when you're 95 get run over by a truck. Getting old and sick sucks. :)
-
Ok... since Rob shared his experience with the Spanish health care, I thought I'd share mine.
The Good
I had appendicitis while in Barcelona, at the tender age of forty something. Presented that late, it is less abrupt and painful, so it took days to diagnose and by the time I ended up in a hospital, it perforated, so I had to spend a week in the hospital after the operation, on antibiotics (it is usually a two-day affair otherwise). A couple of weeks later, I got a bill in mail: 1,700 euros! For the operation and a week in hospital! A couple of years later, in the US, a late-night scare with my kid in the emergency room ended up costing $2,000 ($100 out of pocket, the rest covered by insurance), even though it was just a stomach flu and not much testing or intervention. Even more recently, a visit to the ER for stitches and x-rays (after a fainting spell) cost $20,000 dollars ($5,000 out of pocket this time). Back to the Spanish bill. After itemizing charges, at the bottom it read: "This is not a bill - for your information only." Sweet!
The Not So Good
My kid, in kindergarten then, had most of her baby teeth rotten by excessive drinking or sweet apple juice that her mother was giving her to induce her to sleep faster. It was an esthetic issue, but also I was not sure if the cavities posed a health threat otherwise. Went to a public hospital first. They told me they'd be happy to pull all her teeth out under a general anesthesia. I freaked out. General anesthesia is, statistically, a rather safe procedure, but still not without risk. A kid in Chicago recently died during a dental procedure even under a local anesthesia. So I asked around. Finally ended up with a private pediatric dentist. She said, instead of pulling them all out, she will repair them all with fillings. The reason? Keeping the baby teeth in place would preserve the proper space for the permanent teeth. Of course, filling them all was expensive, 1,000 euros, but the good thing was that my kid never needed braces later on. Anesthesia? Forget it, she said, we are going to go slow. The first two (paid) session she did absolutely no work, just letting my daughter play with the instruments, sit in the chair, etc. The idea was, the doctor said, to get kids used to dentists and procedures. If they get spooked at that age, they would carry it for the rest of their lives.
Glad things worked out for your kid. I went through the opposite. WHen I was a kid, the dentist always seemed to hurt me. I think he was using water instead of Novacaine. Now I sweat everytime I have to go. :)
-
Why not? The issue of loss of healthcare for Brits if there's a Brexit is a major issue regarding leaving the EU. Understanding how you got there seems important to me and should be to BRits. It's also a lesson for Americans who try to do health care similarly as Britain. So readers of this thread who are American should pay attention to the difficulties you're facing because you have a government run health care system. It would be folly for us to do the same.
There's also the argument that America wants to do something about British Health Care system if there's a Brexit although I'm not yet familiar what the second issue is about. Maybe you can educate me. Certainly that has to do with Brexit decisions as well.
Against my better judgement ...
1) Rob's problem arises from the fact that right now he has access to the Spanish health care system, but after Brexit he may not. That has no lessons for the US, unless US and (say) Mexican citizens have a right to reciprocal health care systems - which they don't and nobody is suggesting.
2) The issue about US access to the NHS is around the fear that the NHS would be privatised fpr short term gain and control lost, leading to US-level costs.
-
Against my better judgement ...
1) Rob's problem arises from the fact that right now he has access to the Spanish health care system, but after Brexit he may not. That has no lessons for the US, unless US and (say) Mexican citizens have a right to reciprocal health care systems - which they don't and nobody is suggesting.
2) The issue about US access to the NHS is around the fear that the NHS would be privatised fpr short term gain and control lost, leading to US-level costs.
On your point#2, that's probably where Boris is hoping to find the money to finance all his dreamweaving promises, and reduce national debt. He's good at promises, must grant him that, I guess.
:-)
-
Regarding point #1, I wasn't saying that America would have the same issues regarding health as GB such as the Spaining care. It's just that when government takes over, you no longer can make independent decisions based on your personal needs. It's a one size fits all plan. If the government decides to do something that hurts you, you have nowhere to go. With private insurance, there's competition and choice.
Regarding point #2, thanks for filling in. But how can America affect you national health plan? What kind of American access can there be? What kind of support does Boris expect from us regarding it?
-
That's a different thing - probably few doubt that if you can afford it you can obtain the best treatment in the US. That's not the same as having a good health care system for the non-multi-millionaires.
It has nothing to do with multi-millionaires, Jeremy. You're flouting your ignorance. If you can get to the U.S., you can get treatment. If you're a pauper, all you have to do is walk into an emergency room. They're required, by law, to treat you. If you're a pauper your problem would be transportation to the U.S., not the medical system, which, knowing nothing about it, you believe to be inefficient. I wish you could talk with some of the Canadians who come down to Florida in the winter for medical care they can't get in a timely fashion from Canada's "free" health care system. Our system has its flaws, but unlike "free" health care they tend not to be deadly.
-
It's not ignorance. It's the fake news liberal press that's spread around the world. All biased and tainted. It fools Americans and foreigners alike.
-
It's not ignorance. It's the fake news liberal press that's spread around the world. All biased and tainted. It fools Americans and foreigners alike.
As I said before on another topic, I lived in the US quite a while, so I know something of what I'm talking about. Maybe some others could restrict themselves to waiting till they actually have a clue before opening their mouths?
-
Where, and how long, and what were you doing when you were here, Jeremy? What you just said is meaningless on the face of it. If you were in school, what school? If you were in business, what business? There are plenty of Americans just as ignorant of America as you seem to be. Depends on where they live and what they do.
-
But if your specialist is affiliated with a less experienced hospital with less quantities of procedures, the surgeon he recommends won;t be as experienced or accomplished. Surgery especially is a numbers game.
You don't need to go to a teaching hospital in NYC to get a qualified doctor to perform a heart-bypass. It is routine surgery in hospitals across the nation. Did you actually read US News and World Report's evaluation of NY Presbyterian you linked to? They are rated "poor" in length of stay and incidence of infection. Probably related. Not sure why you are selecting your hospital based on a news magazine survey anyway, but to each his own. Hospitals game the ratings just like schools do in the best colleges survey. I'm glad your procedure went without incident.
-
It has nothing to do with multi-millionaires, Jeremy. You're flouting your ignorance. If you can get to the U.S., you can get treatment. If you're a pauper, all you have to do is walk into an emergency room. They're required, by law, to treat you. If you're a pauper your problem would be transportation to the U.S., not the medical system, which, knowing nothing about it, you believe to be inefficient. I wish you could talk with some of the Canadians who come down to Florida in the winter for medical care they can't get in a timely fashion from Canada's "free" health care system. Our system has its flaws, but unlike "free" health care they tend not to be deadly.
It's commendable that emergency rooms must treat emergencies, but that really doesn't have much to do with long-term health care and society-wide health outcomes.
This is the 3rd or maybe 4th time that you relate your stories of 'deadly free Canadian health care' on these pages. I assume that you're referring to a few anecdotes you've heard and point out that assigning too much importance to a few anecdotes when making generalizations is problematic at best. And it's often wildly incorrect.
Also, please stop using "free" when describing Canadian health or any other comparable system. Everyone, except you, seems to understand that single payer health coverage is not free, we all pay into our national insurance system one way or the other for the service. Repeatedly, deliberately and erroneously using "free" as a pejorative is dog-whistle bs.
But since you like anecdotes, let me give you one. About a year ago, maybe more, there was a story on the news here (in Canada) about a lady on vacation in the US who sustained a leg injury somewhere, a bad break I think but not certain right now. She had purchased travel insurance through someone reputable, can't remember who, too long ago now. The insurance company estimated that it was cheaper to charter a private jet to fly her home, and pay out cancellation fees on the rest of her trip, to be treated at a Canadian hospital rather than go to a US emergency clinic.
-
It's commendable that emergency rooms must treat emergencies, but that really doesn't have much to do with long-term health care and society-wide health outcomes.
Please note that while a hospital in the US has an obligation to treat emergencies, it bills for them. If you don't have insurance or otherwise can't pay, you may end up in bankruptcy court.
-
Also, please stop using "free" when describing Canadian health or any other comparable system. Everyone, except you, seems to understand that single payer health coverage is not free, we all pay into our national insurance system one way or the other for the service. Repeatedly, deliberately and erroneously using "free" as a pejorative is dog-whistle bs.
Of course it's not "free," Robert. That's the whole point. When government does it, it's a hell of a lot more expensive in the long run. You have to pay the doctors, the hospital managers, the politicians, etc. The other problem is that when it's "free to the user," meaning hidden in his taxes, it takes a lot longer to get the care you need. Since it doesn't "cost" the user, every hangnail goes to the doctor and the waiting line becomes obscene.
But since you like anecdotes, let me give you one. About a year ago, maybe more, there was a story on the news here (in Canada) about a lady on vacation in the US who sustained a leg injury somewhere, a bad break I think but not certain right now. She had purchased travel insurance through someone reputable, can't remember who, too long ago now. The insurance company estimated that it was cheaper to charter a private jet to fly her home, and pay out cancellation fees on the rest of her trip, to be treated at a Canadian hospital rather than go to a US emergency clinic.
ROTFL! If that anecdote is what you're basing your evaluation of U.S. medical care on, Robert, then it explains a great deal.
-
Please note that while a hospital in the US has an obligation to treat emergencies, it bills for them. If you don't have insurance or otherwise can't pay, you may end up in bankruptcy court.
But when you're in bankruptcy court you're still alive, when if you'd have had to wait the whole question would be moot.
-
Enough. This is all too silly to go on with.
-
But when you're in bankruptcy court you're still alive, when if you'd have had to wait the whole question would be moot.
So the government requiring hospitals to treat emergencies is a good thing and not governmental interference with the free market? Alan thinks it is unconstitutional. not falling within Congress's enumerated powers, another example on the government impinging on his liberty.
-
Of course it's not "free," Robert. That's the whole point. When government does it, it's a hell of a lot more expensive in the long run. You have to pay the doctors, the hospital managers, the politicians, etc. The other problem is that when it's "free to the user," meaning hidden in his taxes, it takes a lot longer to get the care you need. Since it doesn't "cost" the user, every hangnail goes to the doctor and the waiting line becomes obscene.
ROTFL! If that anecdote is what you're basing your evaluation of U.S. medical care on, Robert, then it explains a great deal.
As I said, it was by way of trading anecdotes. If you think it is ridiculous to judge American health care via that single incident (and of course it is), then you should be able to draw your own conclusions about the validity of your anecdotes.
-
But when you're in bankruptcy court you're still alive, when if you'd have had to wait the whole question would be moot.
Do you believe that you've just made a valid point?
-
Enough. This is all too silly to go on with.
As you keep telling everyone.
-
Enough. This is all too silly to go on with.
I agree, ( i am not as old as you... but still...)
Since it is about Brexit, the latest is Boris Johnsons visit to Ireland.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/uk-parliament-faces-shutdown-johnson-failure-ireland-190909114058995.html
Al Jazeera quotes ;
"The people of this island, north and south, need to know that their livelihoods, their security, and their sense of identity will not be put at risk as a consequence of a hard Brexit," Varadkar told Johnson.
...
"Boris says 'I've got lots and lots of ideas', but he won't tell anyone what they are," said Al Jazeera's Laurence Lee, reporting from London.
-
The old unsolvable problem...; 1+1=2 , but Boris is going to find a different outcome...
-
-
"Boris says 'I've got lots and lots of ideas', but he won't tell anyone what they are," said Al Jazeera's Laurence Lee, reporting from London.
So the question is whether BoJo is actually going to ask for the extension or not. Quite the dilemma for him.
-
Please note that while a hospital in the US has an obligation to treat emergencies, it bills for them. If you don't have insurance or otherwise can't pay, you may end up in bankruptcy court.
This clearly has nothing to do with Brexit, but in at attempt to avoid the propagation of more irrelevant misinformation in this thread about the health care delivery system in the United States:
A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986), requires hospitals to screen and "stabilize" (treat) patients with serious medical conditions regardless of their ability to pay. If the patient has medical insurance or sufficient financial resources, of course the hospital can bill for its services. However, hospitals cannot initiate civil suits against indigent patients. To the contrary, the statute provides significant financial and other penalties for institutions or doctors who fail to provide emergency services to patients who are unable to pay for them.
-
A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986), requires hospitals to screen and "stabilize" (treat) patients with serious medical conditions regardless of their ability to pay. If the patient has medical insurance or sufficient financial resources, of course the hospital can bill for its services. However, hospitals cannot initiate civil suits against indigent patients. To the contrary, the statute provides significant financial and other penalties for institutions or doctors who fail to provide emergency services to patients who are unable to pay for them.
You don't have to initiate a civil suit to hound debtors for payment. You just turn them over to a collection agency. We all know how that goes.
-
So the question is whether BoJo is actually going to ask for the extension or not. Quite the dilemma for him.
Not really. He has never shown any courage, when push comes to shove. He promised to lie down in front of bulldozers to prevent a new Heathrow runway but he quickly forgot about that.
-
Regarding point #1, I wasn't saying that America would have the same issues regarding health as GB such as the Spaining care. It's just that when government takes over, you no longer can make independent decisions based on your personal needs. It's a one size fits all plan. If the government decides to do something that hurts you, you have nowhere to go. With private insurance, there's competition and choice.
Regarding point #2, thanks for filling in. But how can America affect you national health plan? What kind of American access can there be? What kind of support does Boris expect from us regarding it?
Alan, wake up: private health care - via private insurance policies - is widely available in Britain to anyone who wants to buy it. That in no way precludes them from enjoying the full benefits of the national offering during the time they are double-covered. I also know family members still in the UK who paid private insurance policies for years, were hit by a problem, and then refused cover for any repeats of that illness. In Spain, on the other hand, they (private) covered me for two heart-attacks, my wife for four years of cancer treatment covering radio, chemo and four big ops. The last, fifth one was done on the national service as was her broken hip. The national service was so good we stopped shelling out for private.
Not support from the US; the idea seems to have been that our national system would be phased out to make way for US companies to move in with their insurance plans. Exactly what we needed most. Right. I can see the attractions for Trump and US medical industries. Not so much for us Brits. For Trump, he'd be increasing exports, making America Great Again at our cost. Of course, very few Americans would actually see any value from that, but as with many political stances, wonderful sound bites.
Somebody in the New Conservative Party has come out and denied that was ever intended.
Believe who you want to believe. I don't believe anything coming from neo-Nazis.
-
Godwin's Law!!! Bingo! :) :D
-
... "The people of this island, north and south, need to know that their livelihoods, their security, and their sense of identity will not be put at risk as a consequence of a hard Brexit," Varadkar told Johnson....
Who cares if the Irish are pissed off because of Brexit? Aren't they perennially pissed-off anyway, especially at the Brits? ;)
-
Of course it's not "free," Robert. That's the whole point. When government does it, it's a hell of a lot more expensive in the long run.
Demonstrably untrue, Russ. Americans pay more for health care than anyone else. And with worse outcomes.
I suggest this Google search term: "compare us healthcare to other countries"
This result was at the top of the returns
https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2019/us-health-care-spending-highest-among-developed-countries.html
-
Demonstrably untrue, Russ.
How would you demonstrate that? Short of converting the current system into a single-payer (government) one and compare with the current system?
Comparing with other countries is comparing apples and oranges. Plenty of other factors (e.i., not just private vs. public) affecting costs and outcomes.
-
Alan, wake up: private health care - via private insurance policies - is widely available in Britain to anyone who wants to buy it. That in no way precludes them from enjoying the full benefits of the national offering during the time they are double-covered. I also know family members still in the UK who paid private insurance policies for years, were hit by a problem, and then refused cover for any repeats of that illness. In Spain, on the other hand, they (private) covered me for two heart-attacks, my wife for four years of cancer treatment covering radio, chemo and four big ops. The last, fifth one was done on the national service as was her broken hip. The national service was so good we stopped shelling out for private.
Not support from the US; the idea seems to have been that our national system would be phased out to make way for US companies to move in with their insurance plans. Exactly what we needed most. Right. I can see the attractions for Trump and US medical industries. Not so much for us Brits. For Trump, he'd be increasing exports, making America Great Again at our cost. Of course, very few Americans would actually see any value from that, but as with many political stances, wonderful sound bites.
Somebody in the New Conservative Party has come out and denied that was ever intended.
Believe who you want to believe. I don't believe anything coming from neo-Nazis.
You were previously griping about the British Healthcare System. Now you're praising it. Make up your mind.
-
How would you demonstrate that?
By reading the link(s)
-
Demonstrably untrue, Russ. Americans pay more for health care than anyone else. And with worse outcomes.
I suggest this Google search term: "compare us healthcare to other countries"
This result was at the top of the returns
https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2019/us-health-care-spending-highest-among-developed-countries.html
Fake news. Spin. Of course it costs more in America. Professionals earn more money than in other countries. So do patients. So our overall costs will be higher. What's your point?
I think we should nationalize the photography industry. After all, it costs newly-weds more money in America to pay their wedding photographers then they do overseas. That isn't fair.
-
By reading the link(s)
How about you read what i said first:
... Comparing with other countries is comparing apples and oranges. Plenty of other factors (e.i., not just private vs. public) affecting costs and outcomes.
-
Because of national Healthcare, you have to pay $1,400 for a Nikon in Europe that can be bought in B&H in New York City for $1,000.
Of course some people would rather get a Nikon then an MRI.😏
-
Because of national Healthcare, you have to pay $1,400 for a Nikon in Europe that can be bought in B&H in New York City for $1,000.
I think we've reached peak daftness! How do you work that out, Alan? On seconds thoughts, please don't explain - my sides won't stand it!
-
Boris shut down parliament for 5 weeks. So what's happening there?
-
Boris shut down parliament for 5 weeks. So what's happening there?
To prevent Parliament from debating his actions. Boris's idea of democracy.
-
I think we've reached peak daftness! How do you work that out, Alan? On seconds thoughts, please don't explain - my sides won't stand it!
Well a thousand dollars for the camera and $400 from the Vat tax the government will have to spend later on for the buyer's MRI.
-
Fake news. Spin. Of course it costs more in America. Professionals earn more money than in other countries. So do patients. So our overall costs will be higher. What's your point?
USAns earn 108% more than Canadians? Wow - Trump better build a wall to keep out the economic migrants!
-
Boris shut down parliament for 5 weeks. So what's happening there?
Seriously? Have you not read and comprehended the news from the past two weeks? Or do just ignore it because all news is fake news from the left? Your assignment is to google "prorogation brexit", read the first ten articles, and then come back and give us a report.
-
Seriously? Have you not read and comprehended the news from the past two weeks? Or do just ignore it because all news is fake news from the left? Your assignment is to google "prorogation brexit", read the first ten articles, and then come back and give us a report.
I'd rather blow my brains out.
-
I'd rather blow my brains out.
Cheerio
-
USAns earn 108% more than Canadians? Wow - Trump better build a wall to keep out the economic migrants!
A friend of mine moved from Canada to the US. Earns more, paid for a house about a half or less, beer much cheaper as well.
-
A friend of mine moved from Canada to the US. Earns more, paid for a house about a half or less, beer much cheaper as well.
Aah well, that proves it then!
-
A friend of mine moved from Canada to the US. Earns more, paid for a house about a half or less, beer much cheaper as well.
Ah. But wouldn’t that be like comparing apples to oranges? :)
-
Ah. But wouldn’t that be like comparing apples to oranges? :)
Possibly. Except I did not draw any conclusions which system is "superior," just pointing out that, for the same position, salaries here are higher, housing and many other costs lower, etc. While medical might be more expensive, when you have employer insurance, it becomes a non-issue here as well.
-
Possibly. Except I did not draw any conclusions which system is "superior," just pointing out that, for the same position, salaries here are higher, housing and many other costs lower, etc. While medical might be more expensive, when you have employer insurance, it becomes a non-issue here as well.
To be conclusive you really need to consider how much Mick Jagger makes in Canada and the US.
-
You were previously griping about the British Healthcare System. Now you're praising it. Make up your mind.
Alan, you have a learning disability: this has all been explained to you by different correspondents over and over again: there is not a problem between myself and the UK health system. There is a problem with me and the Brexit camp. Hey friggin' soos! What's so difficult for you to grasp in that?
And guess what: your attention span doesn't even last over one post: I was writing about the Spanish health system, not my own country's.
I give up. I try to answer you, help you understand s few simple facts snd you just don't take it in, or don't want to do so because your little world of imagined American superiority might not look so suoerior after all if you did take that almighty risk of thinking outside your national comfort box.
Please, don't answer me; don't address me and just live your life as if I had never existed.
-
Possibly. Except I did not draw any conclusions which system is "superior," just pointing out that, for the same position, salaries here are higher, housing and many other costs lower, etc. While medical might be more expensive, when you have employer insurance, it becomes a non-issue here as well.
Slobodan, American houses are built of wood. Of course they are cheap.
:-)
-
Slobodan, American houses are built of wood. Of course they are cheap.
:-)
And you think Canadian are not?
-
And you think Canadian are not?
Who can tell? They are partly French, you know.
:/)
-
Alan, you have a learning disability: this has all been explained to you by different correspondents over and over again: there is not a problem between myself and the UK health system. There is a problem with me and the Brexit camp. Hey friggin' soos! What's so difficult for you to grasp in that?
And guess what: your attention span doesn't even last over one post: I was writing about the Spanish health system, not my own country's.
I give up. I try to answer you, help you understand s few simple facts snd you just don't take it in, or don't want to do so because your little world of imagined American superiority might not look so suoerior after all if you did take that almighty risk of thinking outside your national comfort box.
Please, don't answer me; don't address me and just live your life as if I had never existed.
I understand very clearly. Brexit wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't government health care. What's so hard to understand about that?
-
I understand very clearly. Brexit wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't government health care. What's so hard to understand about that?
In a way you’re right Alan - without reciprocal health care rights, Rob could never have afforded to go live in Spain, so now Brexit would not be such a problem for hm.
-
In a way you’re right Alan - without reciprocal health care rights, Rob could never have afforded to go live in Spain, so now Brexit would not be such a problem for hm.
There would be lower taxes if there was no national health care. With the extra money, you could afford private health care. With private health insurance you can go wherever you want whenever you want.
The problem is government fails us. Not only in GB. Here too. Our Social Security will run out of money by 2034 reducing payments to 80% of what they are now. Not that they pay that much in the first place. The average monthly Social Security payment is $1500. That's about $9 an hour if you were working 40 hours a week for it. For comparison, the minimum wage here has been raised to $15 an hour in many places which is nearly impossible to live on much less $9 an hour. They should drop the word Security in Social Security. It's a joke. They just raised normal retirement age again from 66 to 67. Imagine a bricklayer working until 67. They keep raising how much they take out of your salary. Social Security is taxed and they';re raising the levels.
Medicare, our national health coverage for seniors, is going broke quicker. with it though, the government is really raise the deductions from your salary. There's no limit. Meanwhile it's not free to seniors using it either. My wife and I spend around $5-6000 a year for it plus another couple of thousand for supplemental private health insurance.
We're all kidding ourselves. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
-
...With private health insurance you can go wherever you want whenever you want...
If by "wherever" you mean abroad, the above is not correct.
-
If by "wherever" you mean abroad, the above is not correct.
Rob lives in Spain. He could get private health care there as could any other foreigner.
https://www.expatica.com/es/healthcare/healthcare-basics/health-insurance-439814/
I imagine private health care insurance is available in many other countries as well. If you can't get it, and you're not covered by that country's health care system, don;t go there.
-
Cigna, Aetna and others provide health care insurance in Spain.
https://www.expatica.com/es/health-insurance-quotes/
-
Why did parliament just refuse again to allow an election? Wouldn't that settle the issue once and for all whether the public really wants Brexit or not? It seems to this outsider, that anti-Brexit's must feel they don;t have the votes to defeat Brexit. That it's just a lot of hot air that the people don't want it any more.
-
"Call for snap UK general election fails (again) for Boris Johnson"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/europe/uk-boris-johnson-snap-election-vote-gbr-intl/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/europe/uk-boris-johnson-snap-election-vote-gbr-intl/index.html)
-
Why did parliament just refuse again to allow an election? Wouldn't that settle the issue once and for all whether the public really wants Brexit or not? It seems to this outsider, that anti-Brexit's must feel they don;t have the votes to defeat Brexit. That it's just a lot of hot air that the people don't want it any more.
You said above that you'd rather shoot yourself than read about Brexit, so why are you asking?
-
I said I'd rather blow my brains out than do what faberman wanted me to do:..."Your assignment is to google "prorogation brexit", read the first ten articles, and then come back and give us a report." That's a bit too much.
🙄
But I'm still interested in Brexit. Just a simple answer to my question about elections.
-
Why did parliament just refuse again to allow an election? Wouldn't that settle the issue once and for all whether the public really wants Brexit or not? It seems to this outsider, that anti-Brexit's must feel they don;t have the votes to defeat Brexit. That it's just a lot of hot air that the people don't want it any more.
It's only a question of timing, and wrong to see it as just anti-Brexit. The majority in Parliament is an alliance of those who would vote for Brexit with a deal, and those who are anti-Brexit in any case.
The timing issue is that even if Parliament did allow him an early election, the system lets BJ change its date. So he could use that loophole to change it to after 31 October when Brexit is currently due, preventing Parliament from obstructing his boneheaded interpretation of Brexit. They simply don't trust BJ - not even his own brother does! An election will probably be called some time after the kamikaze Brexit is prevented.
There are also tactical issues like letting BJ stew, and providing more time for voter registration especially in university towns. An election isn't due till 2022, so what kind of fool would let BJ call an election on his terms?
-
Why would the EU sweeten the deal for Britain and give more than they gave already? How long would new negotiations take anyway? What's the "drop dead" date for Brexit to happen in any case?
-
One last question. What advantage is it to Boris to have a no-deal Brexit that he's pushing?
-
One last question. What advantage is it to Boris to have a no-deal Brexit that he's pushing?
You have to understand that Boris does not really have any beliefs or principles - he just does whatever he thinks is best for him personally. He voted twice against the previous deal (WA) and once for it, so he has no convictions. In the present case he has gained personal advantage (power, ego) from selling himself as a patriotic independent Englander. "No deal" is just part of that image - no matter if the country is screwed.
-
Why would the EU sweeten the deal for Britain and give more than they gave already?
The theory is that they want to avoid no deal because it will damage e.g. German car makes and Irish farmers.
How long would new negotiations take anyway?
No idea - the last lot took three years, so it's anyone's guess!
What's the "drop dead" date for Brexit to happen in any case?
There isn't one in fact - can go on forever in theory. My guess is that there will be an election, Boris will win, and something like no deal will get rammed through. Could well be wrong!!
-
One last question...
How you just made a lot of people on this forum happy ;)
-
You have to understand that Boris does not really have any beliefs or principles - he just does whatever he thinks is best for him personally. He voted twice against the previous deal (WA) and once for it, so he has no convictions. In the present case he has gained personal advantage (power, ego) from selling himself as a patriotic independent Englander. "No deal" is just part of that image - no matter if the country is screwed.
If that's true, he's not going to negotiate very well being forced to do something he doesn;t want to do. On the other hand, some deal for trade has to be done as both sides have things to sell the other.
On the other hand, nothing focuses a person's attention like the hangman's noose. If there's a hard Brexit, both sides will be faced with a major trade problem. There won;t be any. They'll be forced to make a deal rather than just talking about it like they have for three years. Both sides will be wiling to give concessions as British farm products rot in Britain and German cars sit on the docks going nowhere.
-
How you just made a lot of people on this forum happy ;)
I like asking questions. I learn things. Also, most people here like to be teachers, mentors. That's good although we all think we're smarter than the other guy which causes conflict. :) Asking questions causes less hostility than just making your point. It's a better way of learning and keeping the peace at the same time. :)
-
Just when I thought we were in for a few weeks of quiet on Brexit, this:
Brexit: Scottish judges rule Parliament suspension is unlawful (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-49661855)
-
In a way you’re right Alan - without reciprocal health care rights, Rob could never have afforded to go live in Spain, so now Brexit would not be such a problem for hm.
Not quite: we paid for private health insurance for many years, even after Spain became a fully fledged member of the Community; as we were young and healthy, the premiums were affordable, and I had work to finance the whole adventure.
It was premiums going through the roof (mine) when we got ill that put the brakes on that, when my wife discovered just how good the national service was compared with the private we still "enjoyed". Then, we abandoned the private sector. Nothing would have changed for me, except for that idiot Cameron's overestimation of the British nation's common sense quotient. I have been very pleased with the Spanish system and especially now that I can see into eternity again after the cataract ops! It was my countrymen opting to cut their own noses off by doing away with the vast benefits of membership that threatens to screw my peace of mind; well, not threaten: it has achieved it.
-
... threatens to screw my peace of mind; well, not threaten: it has achieved it.
Welcome to the club, Rob. Why shall I be the only one whose country of birth disintegrated? ;)
-
Welcome to the club, Rob. Why shall I be the only one whose country of birth disintegrated? ;)
Indeed; but what's the next step that we can take that doesn't make us worse off?
Going back into roots, the area around Trieste and southwards along the Yugoslav/Italian border was always changing hands, and people finding themselves politically lost. I guess they just got used to it.
:-(
-
Just when I thought we were in for a few weeks of quiet on Brexit, this:
Brexit: Scottish judges rule Parliament suspension is unlawful (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-49661855)
Fascinating. The Scottish Court apparently overruled the Queen who approve the shutdown of Parliament. How could it do that since She is a monarch who reports to no one. If the court can overrule Her decision, what purpose does She serve as a monarch? The court says the PM didn;t fill Her in properly. How to they know that? Are they saying the PM lied? Does the Queen know what's going on, after all She's 95 or so. Who's running the joint. :)
And people think our US government is screwed up with conflicting power.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-49661855 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-49661855)
-
No, they cannot overrule the queen. They have decided her government misled her.
-
No, they cannot overrule the queen. They have decided her government misled her.
They're really doing it based on the reason they think the PM is doing it. That he's up to no good. But the Queen understands what he's up to and approved it anyway. She knows. The court knows too. They overruled the monarch because they don;t like what's up. She has no power.
-
They're really doing it based on the reason they think the PM is doing it. That he's up to no good. But the Queen understands what he's up to and approved it anyway. She knows. The court knows too. They overruled the monarch because they don;t like what's up. She has no power.
Alan, there seems to be something about the English legal system which persistently confuses you, even when you are given entirely correct information. John's formulation was exact. The Queen acts - by convention, must act - on the advice of her ministers. The advice she was given was to prorogue parliament; and so that is what she did. It's a fiction, of course, that the prorogation was her decision, but it is, in our governmental setup, a useful fiction.
In England*, a very strong Divisional Court held that the issue was not justiciable and therefore no investigation was possible. In Scotland, the Inner House of the Court of Session held that it was justiciable and, after investigation, that the PM's motive in giving the advice he did was, in its words, to "stymie parliament".
It's not clear that the Scottish decision has any effect south of the border. Technically, it could be argued that the Inner House, being equivalent in Scotland to the Court of Appeal in England, is a higher court than the Divisional Court in England, from whose decisions in non-criminal matters appeals lie to the Court of Appeal. However, given the composition of the particular Divisional Court (it comprised the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court), that point is somewhat moot.
The matter will reappear before the Supreme Court (which is supreme in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland) next week; the Claimant in the English case has been given permission to "leap-frog" from the Divisional Court straight to the Supreme Court. Then, we'll see.
The whole thing strikes me as an entirely futile waste of time, but it's made a lot of people awfully excited.
Jeremy
*"England" in this context should be read as "England and Wales"
-
... that the PM's motive in giving the advice...
I am not a lawyer, but that position strikes me as idiotic as the one over here, when similar idiots tried to argue they (judges) know what was in Trump's mind when the restrictions on travel from certain Muslim countries were instituted. Trying to read the mind, or motivation, rather than legislation itself, is a slippery slope. They lost, of course, when the matter came to the Supreme Court. The same will happen in the UK.
-
Alan, there seems to be something about the English legal system which persistently confuses you, even when you are given entirely correct information. John's formulation was exact. The Queen acts - by convention, must act - on the advice of her ministers. The advice she was given was to prorogue parliament; and so that is what she did. It's a fiction, of course, that the prorogation was her decision, but it is, in our governmental setup, a useful fiction.
In England*, a very strong Divisional Court held that the issue was not justiciable and therefore no investigation was possible. In Scotland, the Inner House of the Court of Session held that it was justiciable and, after investigation, that the PM's motive in giving the advice he did was, in its words, to "stymie parliament".
It's not clear that the Scottish decision has any effect south of the border. Technically, it could be argued that the Inner House, being equivalent in Scotland to the Court of Appeal in England, is a higher court than the Divisional Court in England, from whose decisions in non-criminal matters appeals lie to the Court of Appeal. However, given the composition of the particular Divisional Court (it comprised the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court), that point is somewhat moot.
The matter will reappear before the Supreme Court (which is supreme in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland) next week; the Claimant in the English case has been given permission to "leap-frog" from the Divisional Court straight to the Supreme Court. Then, we'll see.
The whole thing strikes me as an entirely futile waste of time, but it's made a lot of people awfully excited.
Jeremy
*"England" in this context should be read as "England and Wales"
I said the Queen has no power. To say she was overruled because the PM misled her is silly. She knows what's going on. The fact is however they call it, the Queen's decision was declared null and void. A commoner Scottish judge overruled the monarch. She has no power.
-
The Europe is waking up... finally:
EU chief under fire over 'protecting way of life' portfolio https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49661650
Incoming European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has found herself under fire for nominating a commissioner responsible for "Protecting our European Way of Life"...
... "We must address and allay legitimate fears and concerns about the impact of irregular migration on our economy and society," she added.
-
Eurexit.
-
I said a while back here that the only way they'll save the EU pact is by eliminating the political nonsense and keeping basically a simple trade deal. This woman leader understand this. She's trying to save Europe for the Europeans. MEGA!
-
The UK Parliament pressed the government to make public an internal document "Operation YellowHammer" about the consequences of a failed No Deal Brexit.
It outlines a series of "reasonable worst case assumptions" for the impact of a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the paper confirmed the PM "is prepared to punish those who can least afford it".
Among its other key points are:
- Protests and counter-protests will take place across the UK
- Lorries could have to wait more than two days to cross the Channel
- Some businesses will cease trading
- There will be a growth in the black market
- Some providers of adult social care could fail
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49670123
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf
-
The UK Parliament pressed the government to make public an internal document "Operation YellowHammer" about the consequences of a failed No Deal Brexit.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49670123
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf
And their trick, whenever these concerns are raised, is to call them "Project Fear" as if common sense is to be avoided at all costs because it might show some negative aspect of one's chosen direction of travel.
It's what the phrase "you couldn't make it up" was made up to illustrate.
;-(
-
I am not a lawyer, but that position strikes me as idiotic as the one over here, when similar idiots tried to argue they (judges) know what was in Trump's mind when the restrictions on travel from certain Muslim countries were instituted. Trying to read the mind, or motivation, rather than legislation itself, is a slippery slope. They lost, of course, when the matter came to the Supreme Court. The same will happen in the UK.
The Scottish judges based their view on documentary evidence.
-
The Scottish judges based their view on documentary evidence.
The point Slobodan was making if i can speak for him, was that the American courts decide, or should decide, on the constitutionality of the rule rather than the motive. There are many reasons why legislation is done, some are often not very savory. As they say, making legislation is like making a sausage:- a lot of crap goes into it and people have different reasons for doing it. Can you imagine if the courts could overturn a law because a few Ministers said something illegal for the reason to enact it? You'd never be able to get anything passed into law. So it has to come down to the constitutionality of it.
A case in point was a particular rule in Obamacare Health law. Both Democrats and Republicans considered it a government "fine" to charge people who did not buy health insurance. That was an important requirement of the new law. Fines are ultimately unconstitutional as it would force people to buy a private product. That's not allowed. The Supreme Court heard that argument and despite the evidence that all the lawmakers called it a fine, the court considered it a tax. Taxes are allowed constitutionally. So the law survived because the Supreme Court said the law was valid constitutionally even though it was enacted for a different reason. Laws stand on their own. Getting into the reason becomes a slippery slope.
Now things may be different in GB. We'll see when the Scottish decision is reviewed.
-
The Scottish judges based their view on documentary evidence.
Like what? Scottish scientists are the first with a mind-reading machine? And even then, it would be irrelevant. Even lie detectors are inadmissible in court.
-
And now something completely different:
https://apple.news/AqM_Oc3AZNVGB17IwgdM3zQ
“But the fact remains that after the withdrawal of Britain, we have an economic competitor at our door, even if we want to keep close economic, foreign and security cooperation and friendly relations.
-
Like what? Scottish scientists are the first with a mind-reading machine? And even then, it would be irrelevant. Even lie detectors are inadmissible in court.
Try not to be obtuse. The judges read the documents which the government's lawyers had to disclose.
-
How could the queen not know what's going on when the rest of the world does?
Why doesn't the court just asked the queen what the Prime Minister told her?
-
I said the Queen has no power. To say she was overruled because the PM misled her is silly. She knows what's going on. The fact is however they call it, the Queen's decision was declared null and void. A commoner Scottish judge overruled the monarch. She has no power.
Alan, I vowed a few weeks ago not to engage with you in any discussion involving the UK. I broke that vow to try to explain to you what actually happens over here, but as before, you replace facts with your erroneous perceptions.
This time, I mean it. Pour forth your misapprehensions; I will not attempt to educate you.
Jeremy
-
This time, I mean it. Pour forth your misapprehensions; I will not attempt to educate you.
I think posters who wish to opine on legal issues should confine themselves to misconstruing the laws of the countries where they reside.
-
... replace facts with your erroneous perceptions...
What exactly is erroneous here? Alan stated the Queen has no (political) power. What's erroneous with that statement?
-
That's all I said. The queen has no power Others may have arrived at that conclusion in a different manner. I don't see what the argument is about. But pulling up anchor and sailing away because someone doesn't agree with you. it's not the way to handleit. We can have different opinions.
-
We can have different opinions.
Some based on fact, others not.
-
Whose facts? Whose Truth?
If everyone agreed with these, there wouldn't be a debate. We wouldn't need this forum.
-
I think posters who wish to opine on legal issues should confine themselves to misconstruing the laws of the countries where they reside.
For years we've been hearing Europeans opining on American politics and law. Now that the shoe's on the other foot with brexit, suddenly you don't like the opining when it comes from our side. You can dish it out but can't take it.
-
For years we've been hearing Europeans opining on American politics and law. Now that the shoe's on the other foot with brexit, suddenly you don't like the opining when it comes from our side. You can dish it out but can't take it.
Al contrario, compadre. I find the legal commentary that comes from our side (see attached) quite amusing.
-
What exactly is erroneous here? Alan stated the Queen has no (political) power. What's erroneous with that statement?
Nothing, Slobodan; that far, his post is a restatement of my own text and it's been common knowledge for a very long time.
In the 17th century, a poem was nailed to the bedchamber door of Charles II:
Here lies our sovereign lord the king,
Whose word no man relies on;
He never says a foolish thing,
Nor ever does a wise one.
Charles's response is said to have been "It is true. My words are my own; my actions are those of my ministers".
It's the remainder of Alan's comments which exasperate me. It makes no sense to write that a "Scottish commoner overruled the monarch"; the comment betrays a misunderstanding of process so fundamental that it makes no sense to argue with it. A re-reading of my post might help, I suppose, but I doubt it.
Jeremy
-
Nothing, Slobodan; that far, his post is a restatement of my own text and it's been common knowledge for a very long time.
In the 17th century, a poem was nailed to the bedchamber door of Charles II:
Here lies our sovereign lord the king,
Whose word no man relies on;
He never says a foolish thing,
Nor ever does a wise one.
Charles's response is said to have been "It is true. My words are my own; my actions are those of my ministers".
It's the remainder of Alan's comments which exasperate me. It makes no sense to write that a
"; the comment betrays a misunderstanding of process so fundamental that it makes no sense to argue with it. A re-reading of my post might help, I suppose, but I doubt it.
Jeremy
Jeremy I said it for effect. The process is beside the point. . A king or queen is a Sovereign, like God, and everyone else is a Nobody by comparison. So even a Scottish judge is a nobody or should be. So here is a nobody telling the Sovereign that Her decision is meaningless. That's pretty powerful.
-
You're little poem reminds me of this ditty attributed to Abraham Lincoln.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
— ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
-
Jeremy I said it for effect. The process is beside the point. . A king or queen is a Sovereign, like God, and everyone else is a Nobody by comparison. So even a Scottish judge is a nobody or should be. So here is a nobody telling the Sovereign that Her decision is meaningless. That's pretty powerful.
Alan, perhaps I can help you to make sense of this. The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, which essentially means that all political powers have been transferred to parliament and government ministers. Your misunderstanding is where you refer to the decision to suspend Parliament as being “Her decision”. Of course, we don’t know what conversation took place between the Queen and the PMs ‘envoys’ but in theory no explanation or reasoning would be necessary, the Queen cannot refuse to accept the request. However for Constitutional reasons this process has to take place. It is not for the Queen to examine the legality of the request, but the Judiciary, which is what is occurring presently.
I hope this helps!
Mike
-
..lIt is not for the Queen to examine the legality of the request, but the Judiciary, which is what is occurring presently...
Mike, welcome and thanks for the explanation!
(You may want to change your forum name to something else - your real name, for instance - other than email, if for no other reason than to prevent hassle for yourself when bots discover it and start spamming you)
On the matter of legality, it seems to me, a complete layman and outsider, that the court’s decision is purely political, and nothing to do with legality, as at no point they cited what law was violated. Instead, they went after motivation and intention. As I wrote above, that approach leads to s slippery slope and will be almost certainly overturned by the Supreme Court.
-
It's the remainder of Alan's comments which exasperate me.
Those of us that aren't moderators can simply put trolls on an ignore status and never have to engage. You have a bit more power should you wish....
-
On the matter of legality, it seems to me, a complete layman and outsider, that the court’s decision is purely political, and nothing to do with legality, as at no point they cited what law was violated. Instead, they went after motivation and intention. As I wrote above, that approach leads to s slippery slope and will be almost certainly overturned by the Supreme Court.
That is ignorant nonsense. The judges read confidential government documents to make their decision.
Only an idiot would think that the suspension of Parliament was not intended to obstruct Parliament, or that the queen was not misled. Whatever side one takes on Brexit.
-
That is ignorant nonsense. The judges read confidential government documents to make their decision.
Only an idiot would think that the suspension of Parliament was not intended to obstruct Parliament, or that the queen was not misled. Whatever side one takes on Brexit.
We will see who is ignorant and idiot after the Supreme Court ruling. Let’s not forget that there already is another court’s decision that is completely opposite than the Scottish one.
It was clear from day one to everyone, including idiots, that the strategy was to shorten the time in which Parliament could obstruct PM’s Brexit strategy. But that’s just political maneuvering, as the first court had confirmed. Of course, there are activist, partisan judges who try to intervene in the political matters. Happens here in the States everyday. And every time they lose at the Supreme Court.
-
Alan, perhaps I can help you to make sense of this. The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, which essentially means that all political powers have been transferred to parliament and government ministers. Your misunderstanding is where you refer to the decision to suspend Parliament as being “Her decision”. Of course, we don’t know what conversation took place between the Queen and the PMs ‘envoys’ but in theory no explanation or reasoning would be necessary, the Queen cannot refuse to accept the request. However for Constitutional reasons this process has to take place. It is not for the Queen to examine the legality of the request, but the Judiciary, which is what is occurring presently.
I hope this helps!
Mike
You argue that the queen is just a figurehead, that she has to agree with whatever the PM says. Then you argue that the Scottish judge overruled the whole thing because the queen was lied too by the government who is really in charge. But everyone knows it doesn't matter what the PM said as she has to go along anyway with whatever the government wants to do. So her agreement means nothing yet the court uses a meaningless decision on the queen's part as the reason to overrule the PM who has the authority in the first place. This is Alice in Wonderland, tortured logic. You do understand why we Americans slap ourselves on the head with stuff like this. And people think the US electoral system is screwy.
-
Those of us that aren't moderators can simply put trolls on an ignore status and never have to engage. You have a bit more power should you wish....
Very classy. Just want to shut the other side up. What's the matter? Couldn't come up with a cogent argument?
-
We will see who is ignorant and idiot after the Supreme Court ruling. Let’s not forget that there already is another court’s decision that is completely opposite than the Scottish one.
It was clear from day one to everyone, including idiots, that the strategy was to shorten the time in which Parliament could obstruct PM’s Brexit strategy. But that’s just political maneuvering, as the first court had confirmed. Of course, there are activist, partisan judges who try to intervene in the political matters. Happens here in the States everyday. And every time they lose at the Supreme Court.
You mean the PM is making decisions for political reasons. You think he has to run for election. I'm shocked, simply shocked.
-
The government, had a legal power to prorogue parliament, but it was litigated and the argument was that the government were acting in bad faith and the real intention was to suppress the role of parliament.
A government, facing a legal challenge of bad faith, needed to put down a witness statement from a minister or a senior civil servant explaining how the decision was made. That is what should have happened. For some reason, a witness statement was not put in in this Scottish case, and in the final judgement that has turned out to be crucial.
In the absence of an account by the government of why they took this decision to prorogue parliament it became open to the Scottish judges to infer, in the absence of a positive plausible explanation, that there was a bad motive, that it was being done to stop parliamentary scrutiny.
Unanimously, all three Scottish judges said that the failure of ministers to offer a convincing reason for suspending parliament led them to rule that the motivation was to avoid scrutiny and push through Brexit on October 31 with or without a deal. The only explanation for this prorogation is thus ‘improper motive’. And if it's improper motive, then it's unlawful.
So why wasn't a witness statement submitted by the government? That's where things get more interesting. The reason there wasn't a witness statement is because it seems that nobody would risk the legal peril of signing it. As it's a criminal offence to knowingly mislead a court, it would appear that something prevented somebody happily signing a witness statement explaining the true reason why prorogation was sought.
.Lord Brodie [senior Scottish judge] said the government used its powers “for an improper purpose and in an unreasonable manner” by preventing parliament from holding it to account in the run-up to leaving the EU.
He accused Mr Johnson of failing “to give a proper and complete account of the executive’s true reasons for exercising the prerogative to prorogue parliament”. He said the refusal meant “that the court should draw inferences of fact against the respondent”.
Lord Brodie added: “I would infer . . . that the principal reason for the advice to the Queen to make the order for the prorogation of parliament was to prevent or impede parliament holding the executive politically to account in the run-up to exit day; to prevent or impede parliament from legislating on the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union; and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of no-deal Brexit without further parliamentary interference.”
-
@AlanKlein
Alan, yesterday alone you posted 14 times in this one single thread. I’d respectfully suggest that you spend more time reading and researching rather than simply shooting off the first thing that comes into your head.
I’m sure it’ll help improve both content and tone to the benefit of all who are following this topic.
-
A king or queen is a Sovereign, like God, and everyone else is a Nobody by comparison.
How quaint. We abandoned the concept of the divine right of kings some centuries ago.
Jeremy
-
The government, had a legal power to prorogue parliament, but it was litigated and the argument was that the government were acting in bad faith and the real intention was to suppress the role of parliament.
A government, facing a legal challenge of bad faith, needed to put down a witness statement from a minister or a senior civil servant explaining how the decision was made. That is what should have happened. For some reason, a witness statement was not put in in this Scottish case, and in the final judgement that has turned out to be crucial.
In the absence of an account by the government of why they took this decision to prorogue parliament it became open to the Scottish judges to infer, in the absence of a positive plausible explanation, that there was a bad motive, that it was being done to stop parliamentary scrutiny.
Unanimously, all three Scottish judges said that the failure of ministers to offer a convincing reason for suspending parliament led them to rule that the motivation was to avoid scrutiny and push through Brexit on October 31 with or without a deal. The only explanation for this prorogation is thus ‘improper motive’. And if it's improper motive, then it's unlawful.
So why wasn't a witness statement submitted by the government? That's where things get more interesting. The reason there wasn't a witness statement is because it seems that nobody would risk the legal peril of signing it. As it's a criminal offence to knowingly mislead a court, it would appear that something prevented somebody happily signing a witness statement explaining the true reason why prorogation was sought.
.
That's a good response and clarifies a few things. Better than your other post. But it raises two questions.
1. Isn't it the PM who has to sign the statement, not others? After all, it was he who saw the Queen and could be the only one who knows what he told her.
2. Don't both sides have a right to argue their case before the final upcoming court? If so, couldn;t the PM present and swear and sign the statement at that time to complete the record?
-
How quaint. We abandoned the concept of the divine right of kings some centuries ago.
Jeremy
And here I thought it was still Merry Olde England, Camelot, and all that. :)
-
@AlanKlein
Alan, yesterday alone you posted 14 times in this one single thread. I’d respectfully suggest that you spend more time reading and researching rather than simply shooting off the first thing that comes into your head.
I’m sure it’ll help improve both content and tone to the benefit of all who are following this topic.
I admire your optimism :-)
-
I admire your optimism :-)
Hope makes the world go round.
But holding your breath can make you faint.
:-)
-
Alan, yesterday alone you posted 14 times in this one single thread. I’d respectfully suggest that you spend more time reading and researching rather than simply shooting off the first thing that comes into your head. I’m sure it’ll help improve both content and tone to the benefit of all who are following this topic.
Don’t hold your breath. He has already said he would rather blow his brains out than do so. He has no real interest in the topic at hand. He is just trolling, waiting for someone to say something he disagrees with so he can launch in on a right wing ideological harangue.
-
Don't both sides have a right to argue their case before the final upcoming court? If so, couldn;t the PM present and swear and sign the statement at that time to complete the record?
Indeed they both will. The Supreme Court is, unsurprisingly, supreme. They will reach theor own decision (due on the 27th September) independently. It's not a 2-1 football game. so there's no 'record to complete'.
But they (the government) will need to be 'careful' - last week parliament passed a 'bill' requiring certain civil servants and possibly some ministers (not sure of who's named) to surrender both official and private communications since Johnson became PM. If they get caught 'lying' expect 'the shit to hit the fan'.
Read this:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-parliament-no-deal-vote-operation-yellowhammer-dominic-cummings-a9098311.html
The court hearing is next Tuesday the 17th and will be broadcst live ( you'll be able to watch through your browser) so I recommend an early start and a 'fun' day in front of the tv ... If you do tune-in look for a bloke by the name of David Panick QC who'll be going for the jugular on behalf of one Mrs Gina Miller. So far he's got a 2-0 winners scorecard against the government and he'll be looking for the third (known as a 'hat trick' in the UK)
You'll enjoy the experience.
-
Indeed they both will. The Supreme Court is, unsurprisingly, supreme. They will reach theor own decision (due on the 27th September) independently. It's not a 2-1 football game. so there's no 'record to complete'.
But they (the government) will need to be 'careful' - last week parliament passed a 'bill' requiring certain civil servants and possibly some ministers (not sure of who's named) to surrender both official and private communications since Johnson became PM. If they get caught 'lying' expect 'the shit to hit the fan'.
Read this:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-parliament-no-deal-vote-operation-yellowhammer-dominic-cummings-a9098311.html
The court hearing is next Tuesday the 17th and will be broadcst live ( you'll be able to watch through your browser) so I recommend an early start and a 'fun' day in front of the tv ... If you do tune-in look for a bloke by the name of David Panick QC who'll be going for the jugular on behalf of one Mrs Gina Miller. So far he's got a 2-0 winners scorecard against the government and he'll be looking for the third (known as a 'hat trick' in the UK)
You'll enjoy the experience.
Your first paragraph is contradictory. I don't understand it. Could you clarify?
-
... so there's no 'record to complete'.
I assume the word was used in the sense of “required documents.”
-
I assume the word was used in the sense of “required documents.”
But it would be in the interest of the PM to submit the report that Manoli said was missing. This would complete the record for the last court. If the report gives a reasonable explanation of what he told the Queen, then the court will rule in his favor. Even though we all realize this is only a charade, the court isn't going to embarrass the queen by making her seem like a fool by her going along with something some consider sneaky.
-
But it would be in the interest of the PM to submit the report that Manoli said was missing. This would complete the record for the last court. If the report gives a reasonable explanation of what he told the Queen, then the court will rule in his favor. Even though we all realize this is only a charade, the court isn't going to embarrass the queen by making her seem like a fool by her going along with something some consider sneaky.
I think we could/should safely drop the Queen from the debate. Her role is irrelevant for the Supreme Court, which needs to determine which of the two courts, Scottish or London, was right.
-
That's a good response and clarifies a few things. Better than your other post. But it raises two questions.
1. Isn't it the PM who has to sign the statement, not others? After all, it was he who saw the Queen and could be the only one who knows what he told her.
2. Don't both sides have a right to argue their case before the final upcoming court? If so, couldn;t the PM present and swear and sign the statement at that time to complete the record?
1. He didn't. The advice she took and upon which she acted was technically that of her Privy Council, represented on that occasion by the Lord President, the government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House of Lords. The Queen was in Balmoral; Johnson wasn't there.
2. It would be unusual for evidence to be admitted by an appeal court which was available at the time of the hearing below but not adduced. There's authority on the point, although admittedly only at the level of the Court of Appeal.
Indeed they both will. The Supreme Court is, unsurprisingly, supreme.
It's the highest court in the land, but it isn't "supreme" in anything like the same sense as the US Supreme Court is supreme.
But they (the government) will need to be 'careful' - last week parliament passed a 'bill' requiring certain civil servants and possibly some ministers (not sure of who's named) to surrender both official and private communications since Johnson became PM.
It was a motion requesting disclosure, not a bill (which is the forerunner of an Act).
The court hearing is next Tuesday the 17th and will be broadcst live ( you'll be able to watch through your browser) so I recommend an early start and a 'fun' day in front of the tv ... If you do tune-in look for a bloke by the name of David Panick QC
Lord Pannick has a brilliant mind and is a very able and entertaining advocate. Sir James Edie, who I think will be instructed by the government, is no less able. It could indeed be a good watch. All hearings before the SC are now streamed but the advocacy is often surprisingly stilted.
Jeremy
-
Jeremy, how does your high court differ fron America's?
-
Jeremy, how does your high court differ fron America's?
Wikipedia has a good summary of the U.K. Supreme Court if you are really interested
-
What
powers does
the Supreme
Court have?
The US Congress can legislate only in
accordance with the US Constitution.
Ultimately, it falls to the US Supreme
Court to determine whether legislation is
constitutional – which means SCOTUS
has a considerable amount of power and
the ability to ‘strike down’ legislation if it
is found to be unconstitutional.
http://ukscblog.com/ussc-v-uksc/
Powers of UKSC
The UK does not have single written
constitution, so its power is different to
the SCOTUS.
The UKSC can decide that certain
legislation is incompatible with the
Human Rights Act 1998, or the European
Convention of Human Rights. The
UKSC does not in itself ‘strike down’ the
legislation in question, but leaves it for
Parliament to decide what to do about
resolving the incompatibility.
-
Here's link from my last post. Not sure what it means regarding brexit.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/scotus-and-uksc-comparative-learning-tool.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjB5u-7t87kAhUutlkKHTqgDI4QFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1-7-a_kBEr1bRn-P39kwa4
-
The court hearing is next Tuesday the 17th and will be broadcst live ( you'll be able to watch through your browser) so I recommend an early start and a 'fun' day in front of the tv ... If you do tune-in look for a bloke by the name of David Panick QC who'll be going for the jugular on behalf of one Mrs Gina Miller. So far he's got a 2-0 winners scorecard against the government and he'll be looking for the third (known as a 'hat trick' in the UK)
Lord Pannick has a brilliant mind and is a very able and entertaining advocate. Sir James Edie, who I think will be instructed by the government, is no less able. It could indeed be a good watch. All hearings before the SC are now streamed but the advocacy is often surprisingly stilted.
I'd be interested to observe first-hand how British appellate arguments differ from our own, although the hearing will take place rather early in the morning for those of us on this side of the Atlantic. I found a link on the Supreme Court's website (https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html) that appears to be where the live steam may be found on Tuesday; is that where to look? Also, have the parties submitted briefs that are available online which one might read in advance?
If your patience hasn't been exhausted by some of the earlier questions about this case, I have a few of my own:
- Is the only issue before the Supreme Court that of justiciability—i.e., what in the United States we call the "political question" doctrine, which precludes the judiciary from intervening in issues that are considered exclusively within the purview of elected representatives?
- If the Supreme Court rules that there is indeed a justiciable issue, will the case likely be remanded back to a lower court to hear more evidence regarding the motive for proroguing Parliament? And if so, which court? My impression was that the Scottish ruling was a decision by an appellate rather than a trial court.
- The jurisdictional issue is difficult to understand for someone who is familiar only with U.S. legal practice since the interaction between our state and federal jurisdictions is subject to very different constitutional provisions and case law. Should the U.K. Supreme Court conclude that the decision of the government is nonjusticiable, would that overrule the Scottish court, per se, simply prevent any further proceedings against the government from taking place in Scotland, or have some other legal consequence?
Sorry if these questions seem obtuse. Our legal traditions have ... ahem ... diverged somewhat over the last 240-plus years.
-
Those are pertinent questions Chris. Also, since Britain doesn't have a written Constitution, how does that affect determination of what's legal in this kind of a situation? Actually, how does that work in all cases?
-
I'd be interested to observe first-hand how British appellate arguments differ from our own, although the hearing will take place rather early in the morning for those of us on this side of the Atlantic. I found a link on the Supreme Court's website (https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html) that appears to be where the live steam may be found on Tuesday; is that where to look? Also, have the parties submitted briefs that are available online which one might read in advance?
That seems to be the correct place. The live stream will be a bit early, but most (perhaps all) hearings are made available later. I don't know how quickly. From memory, you can follow links from the home page to streams of earlier hearings. The parties will have prepared written skeleton arguments but they're not generally published anywhere. One of the main differences between the UKSC and the SCOTUS seems to be that we place far more emphasis on oral argument, which can occupy two days or more. The written skeletons are important, but are expected to be pretty skeletal, fleshed out before the Court.
If your patience hasn't been exhausted by some of the earlier questions about this case, I have a few of my own:
- Is the only issue before the Supreme Court that of justiciability—i.e., what in the United States we call the "political question" doctrine, which precludes the judiciary from intervening in issues that are considered exclusively within the purview of elected representatives?
- If the Supreme Court rules that there is indeed a justiciable issue, will the case likely be remanded back to a lower court to hear more evidence regarding the motive for proroguing Parliament? And if so, which court? My impression was that the Scottish ruling was a decision by an appellate rather than a trial court.
- The jurisdictional issue is difficult to understand for someone who is familiar only with U.S. legal practice since the interaction between our state and federal jurisdictions is subject to very different constitutional provisions and case law. Should the U.K. Supreme Court conclude that the decision of the government is nonjusticiable, would that overrule the Scottish court, per se, simply prevent any further proceedings against the government from taking place in Scotland, or have some other legal consequence?
Sorry if these questions seem obtuse. Our legal traditions have ... ahem ... diverged somewhat over the last 240-plus years.
I've not seen any of the relevant documents, so it's hard to be sure. I would expect that all issues are open: justiciability is obviously the first question to be determined, since if the issue is non-justiciable, there's nothing more to be discussed. Miller's appeal from the Divisional Court will be primarily on the justiciability issue but if the finding is in her favour, she would ask for other issues to be considered. I assume she is asking for what used to be called a writ of certiorari (a term which it appears you use differently) but is now known as a quashing order. The government's appeal in the Scottish case obviously covers both justiciability and the subsequent findings of fact.
Remitting the issue is a possibility in the English proceedings, but I think it's very unlikely. It's not possible in the Scottish proceedings, as the legality question has already been determined at the highest local court level, the Inner House (on appeal, you are correct; the judge at first instance found that the issue was not justiciable, as did the Divisional Court in England).
No more evidence would be permitted in any event: the cases were fully prepared at first instance and it's very rare, as I've mentioned before, for new evidence to be admitted on appeal.
The UKSC is the supreme court in all UK jurisdictions, so its decision would be final and bind England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I believe there are proceedings afoot in Northern Ireland, but from what little I've heard they relate in part to the Good Friday agreement and are therefore pursued on a rather different basis.
Jeremy
-
Those are pertinent questions Chris. Also, since Britain doesn't have a written Constitution, how does that affect determination of what's legal in this kind of a situation? Actually, how does that work in all cases?
It's customary to say that we don't have a written constitution. It's probably more correct to say that our constitution is not codified; it consists of a mixture of law, court-decided precedent and convention, discussed in vast volumes of writing by judges and legal and constitutional academics. It's pragmatic, responding to different situations as they arise. To that extent, while decisions are (in theory, at least) perhaps less predictable than those made under a codified constitution such as yours, we have a greater degree of flexibility.
Jeremy
-
It's probably more correct to say that our constitution is not codified; it consists of a mixture of law, court-decided precedent and convention, discussed in vast volumes of writing by judges and legal and constitutional academics. It's pragmatic, responding to different situations as they arise.
In some respects, the U.K. and U.S. constitutional approaches are not as different as they superficially may appear: our written constitutional document cannot be meaningfully understood without reference to the two centuries of case law interpreting it. Admittedly, convention and academic opinions are not particularly strong influences on constitutional doctrine here, although both litigants and judges do rely on them to some extent when the case law is sparse or conflicted. I do agree that it's accurate to generalize that our constitutional system is more rigid than yours because of the inbuilt procedural obstacles to amending the fundamental document—which has only happened 27 times, the first ten of which took place shortly after its adoption to remedy what were widely believed to be implicit assumptions which should have been made explicit in the original draft. But the British common law origins of U.S. judicial practice are still very evident, especially where constitutional interpretation is concerned. Quite different, for example, than the legal tradition in continental Europe.
What intrigues and rather surprises me about the current Brexit case—although this may simply reflect my ignorance—is for an issue of parliamentary practice to wind up in the courts. Disaffected political parties here frequently resort to legal action in an attempt to challenge actions by the president or Congress, but I was under the impression that was a peculiarly American phenomenon.
-
It's like a fight between kids, Chris. You have to have a mom to settle things. The kids (politicians) can't do it on their own.
-
What if Boris loses. Wouldn't it only extend this thing another three weeks? How would it affect Brexit if at all?
-
I'd be interested to observe first-hand how British appellate arguments differ from our own, although the hearing will take place rather early in the morning for those of us on this side of the Atlantic. I found a link on the Supreme Court's website (https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html) that appears to be where the live steam may be found on Tuesday; is that where to look?
I'd suggest the most direct link, in all probability (and from memory), is the section titled 'Brexit related case(s)' on the index page:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/index.html
I've also noticed that SKY News has taken to broacsting a live feed via YouTube. Though not a live stream of the proceedings, it should be a reliable source of news, commentary and reaction throughout. On the hour, every hour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siyW0GOBtbo&feature=share
-
What if Boris loses. Wouldn't it only extend this thing another three weeks?
The Supreme Court ruling isn't due to be handed down until the 27th September. There is an ongoing 'discussion' as to whether, in light of the Scottish ruling, Parliament should be recalled pending the ruling. Needless to say, Boris has rejected that idea and there is currently no way to compel him to do so.
Below is a link to a previous AG, Dominic Grieve QC, on the current 'impasse'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wASuWvqHW_M
-
The Supreme Court ruling isn't due to be handed down until the 27th September. There is an ongoing 'discussion' as to whether, in light of the Scottish ruling, Parliament should be recalled pending the ruling. Needless to say, Boris has rejected that idea and there is currently no way to compel him to do so.
Below is a link to a previous AG, Dominic Grieve QC, on the current 'impasse'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wASuWvqHW_M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wASuWvqHW_M)
I believe in America, an appeals court could compel the lower court's decision while a higher court reviews the situation and makes a final ruling. Although, in many cases, the appeals court just freezes everything until then. In any case, it has latitude with its ruling.
So how does that work in GB ?
The other question relating to your comment that Boris won't recall parliament:- If the Scottish court did tell the PM to do something, does he have to comply? In America, there's a tradition that officials follow the court's ruling (revised) even while the case is being appealed to a higher court. He could be held by the court to being in legal contempt of it which could create a "constitutional crises". After all, it's the executive who is charged with enforcing laws and court decisions which complicates it even more . What happens in GB? Can the PM thumb his nose at the courts? If he does, what happens? Are there political and/or legal consequences?
-
So how does that work in GB ?
We're about to find out.
The other question relating to your comment that Boris won't recall parliament:- If the Scottish court did tell the PM to do something, does he have to comply? In America, there's a tradition that officials follow the court's ruling (revised) even while the case is being appealed to a higher court. He could be held by the court to being in legal contempt of it which could create a "constitutional crises". After all, it's the executive who is charged with enforcing laws and court decisions which complicates it even more . What happens in GB? Can the PM thumb his nose at the courts? If he does, what happens? Are there political and/or legal consequences?
There are, or will be, legal consequences. But my suggestion to you is 'wait and see'. The possibilities are multiple and if BoJo does defy the SC, not only could he theoretically face jail but the UK will have a constitutional crisis to deal with.
To simplify as much as possible. On September 4th parliament passed a bill that compelled the Government to seek a further extension to Britain's membership of the EU UNLESS a new agreement is reached with Brussels by October 19th. This was ratified by the upper house so is now law.
BoJo has reiterated on many occasions that he'll NOT ask for an extension (in defiance of parliament) and would rather be 'dead in a ditch'. What happens to a Prime Minister who wilfully and knowingly defies the law ? Again, we may soon find out.
-
Boris doesn;t strike me as the jail type. I don;t think we'll see him in a ditch any time soon either.
In any case, the parliamentary situation is different. Doesn't parliament pick the PM, that's why he's the PRime. So can't parliament unelect him? If they don;t, then in effect they agree he should remain PM even though he violated their own law. In effect, they annulled their own law.
This is similar to what happens in America when we go to war. The Congress is supposed to declare war, not the president. That's in keeping with our founders desire to limit power of one man. However, over the years, Congress has ignored that rule and given more power to the president to get us involved in conflicts without their "official" OK. However, they could stop the war by not funding it. Troops have to be fed, paid, and armed. So if the Congress continues to fund the war, they in effect have declared war constitutionally. At least that's how the Supreme Court has ruled in the past. So if Parliament similarly does nothing to the PM, they de facto agreed with his act even if it was illegal de jure.
-
That remains to be seen. Calling a bluff and losing it is possible.
Anyway, here's some more perspective from a former PM, Tony Blair:
https://youtu.be/dzg-TT0jnrE?t=257
I watched it. It seems Tony Blair was and is against Brexit. He just wants another bite of the apple in a referendum hoping that Brits would reject Brexit this time. Guess what? He's not Prime Minister anymore and doesn't make the rules. The world and GB has moved on.
-
I'd be interested to observe first-hand how British appellate arguments differ from our own, although the hearing will take place rather early in the morning for those of us on this side of the Atlantic.
The schedule is published on the SC website. A full 3 days are allotted to the proceedings and of immediate interest will be the submissions of the appellant Gina Miller v the Prime Minister on Tuesday the 17th, 1030-1300 (Lord Pannick) and the Governments reply on Wednesday the 18th, 1030-1300 (Sir James Eadie).
The appeal by the AG for Scotland is heard concurrently but has its own case ID.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0193.html
The judgement appealed:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/2381.html
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/2381.pdf
and, the Scottish judgement:
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2019/2019_CSOH_70.pdf
Live feed:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
and, 'pour memoire' SKY news, via YouTube, on the hour every hour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siyW0GOBtbo&feature=share
-
I watched it. It seems Tony Blair was and is against Brexit. He just wants another bite of the apple in a referendum hoping that Brits would reject Brexit this time. Guess what? He's not Prime Minister anymore and doesn't make the rules. The world and GB has moved on.
A lot of politicians come to their senses after they have been in power, maybe Tony Blair is one of them.
Hopefully the PM of today does not make the same mistakes he made while in power;
for one backing the USA to create a war in the Middle East based on false evidence.
-
BoJo has reiterated on many occasions that he'll NOT ask for an extension (in defiance of parliament) and would rather be 'dead in a ditch'. What happens to a Prime Minister who wilfully and knowingly defies the law ?
My understanding is that he then morphs into the Incredible Hulk.
The schedule is published on the SC website. A full 3 days are allotted to the proceedings
Thanks for posting the links to the documents and the schedule. Three days of oral argument? Yikes! But Jeremy Roussak warned me (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=129874.msg1130117#msg1130117).*
―――
*A typical oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court takes an hour. But the arguments of the parties have already been extensively briefed in writing. In my experience, I would be hard put to recall a case where I felt the oral argument actually altered the expected outcome.
-
Three days of oral argument? Yikes!
Sounds worse than the actuality!
To simplify it,
The UK case (GIna Miller) is heard in the morning sittings, 1030-1300, days 1&2.
The Scottish case, the afternoon sittings 1400-1600, days 1&2
The Appellants on day 1 , the Respondents on day 2.
Day 3, covers oral interventions (all of about 30 minute duration) from Scottish, Welsh, NI interested parties and one by Sir John Major (ex-PM).
1400-1430 The Appellants reply Advocate General for Scotland (Lord Keen)
1430-1500 The Miller Appellants reply (Lord Pannick).
-
Well they've started to meet. I get the impression from the attached article that my theory that the disagreement is political and the courts won;t overrule the PM is very possible. The theory seems to be supported by the leader of the highest court. To argue that the PM's legal authority to do something is being done for political reasons is a no-brainer. Like I said in a previous post, I'm shocked, simply shocked that the politicians are playing political. But that's no business of the courts. That's for Parliament and the PM to figure out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49722087
-
Some get it about right:
-
I watched some of the hearings today and it was pretty boring. The advocate was reading his brief to the court. Certainly not as compelling as Rumpole.
-
Can someone more familiar with the issue explain how is US-China trade war causing German recession? If anything, it should help them? What am I missing?
-
Recessions are the economy's way of correcting imbalances. The EU, America, China etc have al been running up debt. Creating bubbles. It's like when you start tapping out your credit cards. You have to cut back on spending. You start paying down your debt. Less money for spending. It's what happens when you're a pig about debt. Same thing with countries that are pigs about debt like my country. . Recessions are good. They normalize economies. Look how the recession of 2009 restored real estate bubble prices to the"right" levels. Marginal companies go out of business.
-
I suspect we've got a bubble in the stock market this time.
-
Recessions are the economy's way of correcting imbalances. The EU, America, China etc have al been running up debt. Creating bubbles.
The German government has not exactly been running up debt (https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-budget). Arguably there are other fundamental problems in the German economy, including excessive reliance on manufacturing-sector exports, especially automobiles and industrial machinery, but a spendthrift government isn't one of them.
-
Recessions are the economy's way of correcting imbalances....
But what happened is that banks were saved by the EU and The US by printing more and more money.
The capitalist system is not working as it is supposed to; At the moment we have negative interest rates in the EU because of it.
The logic is out the system.
-
The German government has not exactly been running up debt (https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-budget). Arguably there are other fundamental problems in the German economy, including excessive reliance on manufacturing-sector exports, especially automobiles and industrial machinery, but a spendthrift government isn't one of them.
That's great having a budget surplus. America's deficit is over one trillion. But Germany relies on exports. When people in foreign lands stop running up debt, German exports suffer. They get infected by us so their GDP suffers. Brexit could be aggravating the situation as well.
-
But what happened is that banks were saved by the EU and The US by printing more and more money.
The capitalist system is not working as it is supposed to; At the moment we have negative interest rates in the EU because of it.
The logic is out the system.
When America went off the gold standard, things went to hell. We haven't stopped printing and borrowing since. Politicians don't want to tell their voters "no" to anything they want. Now there's discussion in America to go to negative interest rates as you have in Europe. We want everything for free. A day of reckoning is coming. We're going to kill the golden goose.
-
Is this the start of Brexit?
"Thomas Cook Airline Collapse Triggers Largest Peacetime Repatriation In U.K. History"
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763355554/thomas-cook-airline-collapse-triggers-largest-peacetime-repatriation-in-u-k-hist (https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763355554/thomas-cook-airline-collapse-triggers-largest-peacetime-repatriation-in-u-k-hist)
-
Is this the start of Brexit?...
I don’t think it has anything to do with it.
I wish every package-tour agency and every low-cost airline or tour operator goes bankrupt soon. Not only there are too many people on this planet, but too many god-damned tourists everywhere.
-
I don’t think it has anything to do with it.
I wish every package-tour agency and every low-cost airline or tour operator goes bankrupt soon. Not only there are too many people on this planet, but too many god-damned tourists everywhere.
Fortunately, my wife and I are retired. So when we travel, we go just off season when kids are still in school. It's cheaper and less crowded. Less noisy too. :)
-
I don’t think it has anything to do with it.
I wish every package-tour agency and every low-cost airline or tour operator goes bankrupt soon. Not only there are too many people on this planet, but too many god-damned tourists everywhere.
Sadly, it's also one of the greatest factors within the economy of many nations, Britain, I believe, being amongst them.
On the people factor, 100% with you. Roll on winter. We don't do skiing, despite the number of lost people in stout boots and carrying the sticks, a silly expression on their faces.
Have you noticed how many people on their daily commute, or even just wandering around looking for lost skiers, also carry parachutes all the time? Crazy. Never like that in the 60s: people like myself carried Samsonite briefcases.
:-(
-
To an American eye, the U.K. Supreme Court's ruling today (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf) reads like a British version of Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first asserted the principle of judicial review over Acts of Congress—the authority of the judiciary to invalidate statutes that contravene constitutional principles.
I was especially struck that the court not only declared the prorogation of Parliament to be unconstitutional, but apparently nullified it:
61. It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful.
Remedy
62. Mrs Miller asks us to make a declaration that the advice given to Her Majesty was unlawful and we can certainly do that. The question is whether we should do more than that, in order to make it crystal clear what the legal consequences of that holding are. The Inner House did go further and declared, not only that the advice was unlawful, but that “any prorogation which followed thereon, is unlawful and thus null and of no effect”. The essential question is: is Parliament prorogued or is it not?
63. The Government argues that we cannot answer that question, or declare the prorogation null and of no effect, because to do so would be contrary to article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688, an Act of the Parliament of England and Wales, or the wider privileges of Parliament, relating to matters within its “exclusive cognisance”. The prorogation itself, it is said, was “a proceeding in Parliament” which cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. . . .
69. This court is not . . . precluded by article 9 or by any wider Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself. The logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice that led to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, [citation omitted]. It led to the Order in Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect.
70. It follows that Parliament has not been prorogued and that this court should make declarations to that effect. We have been told by counsel for the Prime Minister that he will “take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by the court” and we expect him to do so. However, it appears to us that, as Parliament is not prorogued, it is for Parliament to decide what to do next.
The court seems to have reserved for itself a bit of wiggle-room with respect to the implications of its decision, noting that the controversy "arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again." But the significance of Marbury wasn't fully apparent until it was subsequently employed as a precedent to strike down other unconstitutional statutes.
-
But they don't have a constitution like the US does. They can make it up as they go along.
-
What if the next court deems for itself additional powers to decide how government should act? I'm sure there were similar arguments with Marbury. But in the UK, unlike in America, there's no written constitution that codified government powers and perquisites.
-
The whole thing strikes me as an entirely futile waste of time, but it's made a lot of people awfully excited.
11 SC justices unanimous in their decision (and a severity of language in the judgement) clearly disagreed with you.
Oops ... !
-
11 SC justices unanimous in their decision (and a severity of language in the judgement) clearly disagreed with you.
Oops ... !
You guys need a written constitution. Once the court senses its power, its going to want more.
-
You guys need a written constitution. Once the court senses its power, its going to want more.
Give it a rest, that system has been operating for quite a few centuries now. If the courts were going to take over political power it would have happened by now.
I asked you this once before in jest, but now I'm starting to wonder. Are you actually a Russian-paid troll? Because you post like one, you know.
-
Nyet.
-
But they don't have a constitution like the US does. They can make it up as they go along.
Of course we have a constitution. It is not codified in the way in which many countries have set out their constitution, but it is nonsense to suggest that it does not exist. See [39]: Although the United Kingdom does not have a single document entitled “The Constitution”, it nevertheless possesses a Constitution, established over the course of our history by common law, statutes, conventions and practice. Since it has not been codified, it has developed pragmatically, and remains sufficiently flexible to be capable of further development.
Some might observe, watching other countries wrestling with their codified constitutions, that pragmatism and flexibility are not bad things.
11 SC justices unanimous in their decision (and a severity of language in the judgement) clearly disagreed with you.
Not really. My comment was not directed at the legality of the exercise, but on the actual effect it was going to have; and that, given the state of the parties in the Commons and the fact that the declaration may conceivably lead to resumption of sitting in the very near future, is pretty much nil.
I was especially struck that the court not only declared the prorogation of Parliament to be unconstitutional, but apparently nullified it:
The SC neither declared the prorogation unconstitutional, Chris, nor did it nullify it. Rather, it decided that the prorogation was unlawful because it prevented Parliament from doing its duty; hence that the advice given to the Queen to order prorogation was unlawful; and hence it declared that the prorogation itself had not happened.
See [69-70]: The logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice that led to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect.
It follows that Parliament has not been prorogued and that this court should make declarations to that effect.
Jeremy
-
... it decided that the prorogation was unlawful because it prevented Parliament from doing its duty...
If unlawful, which law was broken?
I understand that prorogation is a pretty standard practice, in which, in every prior instance, the parliament is prevented from doing its duty.
-
I was especially struck that the court not only declared the prorogation of Parliament to be unconstitutional, but apparently nullified it:
The verdict was, IIRC, that the advice to the Queen was “unlawful, void and of no effect”.
The order to prorogue akin to a “blank piece of paper” .
It was a triumph for parliamentary sovereignty and a comprehensive condemnation of BoJo and his ERG extremists.
Good op-ed piece by Lord Sumption, an ex-SC justice, on the ruling:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/supreme-court-ruling-is-the-natural-result-of-boris-johnson-s-constitutional-vandalism-kshrnrt55
The last four paragraphs:
The British constitution famously consists of many things that are not law but political conventions. Some of them are rules of practice. Others are attitudes of mind, part of a shared political culture that is based on respect for the centrality of the House of Commons. Political conventions are a better, more flexible and more democratic alternative to law. But if we are to avoid a wholly legal constitution, we must honour them.
The present government has taken an axe to convention. It has sought to use the awesome prerogative powers of the Crown, but without the accountability to parliament that alone makes the existence of those powers tolerable. It has been determined to disregard our only collective political forum. This is something entirely new in British politics.
The natural result of constitutional vandalism on this scale is that conventions have hardened into law. That is the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is infinitely regrettable that it should have come to this, but better than leaving a void governed by neither convention nor law, in which the government can do whatever it likes.
The moral is that under our constitution 52 per cent cannot expect to carry off 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. That is what parliament is for.
Lord Sumption retired as a justice of the Supreme Court in December last year
-
For the most sane people outside the UK, you guys do not have a constitution. "Attitudes of mind"... give me a break.
"Not law but political conventions..." Damn right it is political. The verdict gives a new meaning to "activist judges."
-
The SC neither declared the prorogation unconstitutional, Chris, nor did it nullify it. Rather, it decided that the prorogation was unlawful because it prevented Parliament from doing its duty; hence that the advice given to the Queen to order prorogation was unlawful; and hence it declared that the prorogation itself had not happened.
OK, I understand the distinction you're making. Probably not the best choice of words on my part. (I initially thought to say that the court held Johnson's recommendation for an extended prorogation to be ultra vires, which is how I interpreted its use of the word "unlawful," but settled on what seemed at the time to be clearer language.)
But unless I'm missing something else, it still seems to me that the Supreme Court has taken a step with this ruling in the direction of American-style judicial review. The court's decision is self-enforcing, is it not? No further action by the Prime Minister or Parliament is needed to give it effect; indeed, the Speaker immediately announced that Parliament would sit on Wednesday. So by its "declaration," the court has effectively nullified (or reversed or countermanded—I don't know what term would be most appropriate) a real-world action taken by the executive. At least, that's how it appears on this side of the Atlantic.
-
Of course we have a constitution. It is not codified in the way in which many countries have set out their constitution, but it is nonsense to suggest that it does not exist. See [39]: Although the United Kingdom does not have a single document entitled “The Constitution”, it nevertheless possesses a Constitution, established over the course of our history by common law, statutes, conventions and practice. Since it has not been codified, it has developed pragmatically, and remains sufficiently flexible to be capable of further development.
Some might observe, watching other countries wrestling with their codified constitutions, that pragmatism and flexibility are not bad things.
...
Jeremy
An oral constitution is not worth the paper it's printed on.
-
For the most sane people outside the UK, you guys do not have a constitution. "Attitudes of mind"... give me a break.
"Not law but political conventions..." Damn right it is political. The verdict gives a new meaning to "activist judges."
It strikes me that had the US a similar concept of constitution to ours, your gun lobby would have been rendered speechless without the loss of so many lives. As it stands, it will always be able to buy enough politicians to keep the head count rolling and the guns and bullets selling. What's not to like? Just as long as it's somebody else's people hit the dust, because when it's your own, for you it's too late.
Tell me, then: had the judges of the SC ruled the other way, would they still have been, and I quote: activist judges, or does it all depend on the direction of flow?
I love the idea of all those inner city guns and country bumkin guns being turned onto the future invaders of the USA. Will they come from Mexico - remember, Donald just said today - in front of witnesses - that he and Mexico have got a very good deal, with thousands of Mexican soldiers lined up to protect the US border, so the attack won't come from there. Wait! Those Canadians and their silly claims to parts of the Arctic when clearly, that's just fake claiming. They might decide to invade! Or Greenland! Who knows what militia they have training in the snow? Hey, what about the strange events in the Bahamas? What's really happening there? In a world where you can trust nobody...Yep, you sure need your guns!
No surrender!
-
The car industry might help Brexit agreement with the remainder of the EU. Of course, if trade agreements can be made, why would it be necessary for any other EU member to stay in the EU?
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-autos/billions-of-euros-millions-of-jobs-europes-carmakers-warn-on-no-deal-brexit-idUKKBN1W70VF
-
OK, I understand the distinction you're making. Probably not the best choice of words on my part. (I initially thought to say that the court held Johnson's recommendation for an extended prorogation to be ultra vires, which is how I interpreted its use of the word "unlawful," but settled on what seemed at the time to be clearer language.)
Chris, I think ultra vires are, to mix languages, the mots justes. His advice has been deemed unlawful because its effect has been judged to be unjustifiable.
But unless I'm missing something else, it still seems to me that the Supreme Court has taken a step with this ruling in the direction of American-style judicial review. The court's decision is self-enforcing, is it not? No further action by the Prime Minister or Parliament is needed to give it effect; indeed, the Speaker immediately announced that Parliament would sit on Wednesday. So by its "declaration," the court has effectively nullified (or reversed or countermanded—I don't know what term would be most appropriate) a real-world action taken by the executive. At least, that's how it appears on this side of the Atlantic.
I don't know enough about American JR to comment on that. For myself, I think it is a dangerous decision because it involves the court's weighing the effect of a decision against the justification for that decision; and that seems to me to be supremely a matter for politicians and not for the judiciary. But, to misquote, I am not now nor have I ever been a Justice of the Supreme Court (and nor will I ever be, but that's another matter). What it does not do, despite attempts to present it as such, is to decide that Johnson "lied" to the Queen, or even "misled" her.
An oral constitution is not worth the paper it's printed on.
Possibly true, but utterly irrelevant. I wrote that we have no codified constitution, not that it was unwritten. Which part of "common law, statutes, conventions and practice", do you imagine is not written down?
Good op-ed piece by Lord Sumption, an ex-SC justice
Sumption's piece is, as one would expect from a phenomenally intelligent man, an eminent historian as well as a jurist, lucidly written; and its tone is one of sorrow, not of anger. The penultimate paragraph you quote is a superb summation. I suspect he shares my fear that this is step too far, even if he is prepared to support it as being, in the circumstances, necessary.
Jeremy
-
... For myself, I think it is a dangerous decision because it involves the court's weighing the effect of a decision against the justification for that decision; and that seems to me to be supremely a matter for politicians and not for the judiciary....
+1
-
...
I don't know enough about American JR to comment on that. For myself, I think it is a dangerous decision because it involves the court's weighing the effect of a decision against the justification for that decision; and that seems to me to be supremely a matter for politicians and not for the judiciary. But, to misquote, I am not now nor have I ever been a Justice of the Supreme Court (and nor will I ever be, but that's another matter). What it does not do, despite attempts to present it as such, is to decide that Johnson "lied" to the Queen, or even "misled" her.
Possibly true, but utterly irrelevant. I wrote that we have no codified constitution, not that it was unwritten. Which part of "common law, statutes, conventions and practice", do you imagine is not written down?
...
Jeremy
Is it possible that because your written constitution is not codified, that may have led to a decision that should have been left to the politicians. It's bad enough in America that unelected Supreme Court Justices re-interpret a codified written constitution to their liking making law that should be made by elected officials who represent the people. Frankly, that's undemocratic. So how does the Supreme Court in the UK assure that judges won't make law without a codified constitution? What is a constitution that is not codified? Apparently I don;t understand what that means.
-
Ultra vires! Wonderful the educational properties of Lula! Something new every day; which just goes to show you that those who wish to restrict LuLa posts and threads to photography alone are sure wishing to remain broadly ignorant of so much more.
Thank you, LuLa honchos, for keepìng the broader attitude alive and well. The power, interest and value of the CC is revealed yet again.
;-)
-
The power, interest and value of the CC is revealed yet again.
Res ipsa loquitur.
-
Ultra vires! Wonderful the educational properties of Lula! Something new every day; which just goes to show you that those who wish to restrict LuLa posts and threads to photography alone are sure wishing to remain broadly ignorant of so much more.
Thank you, LuLa honchos, for keepìng the broader attitude alive and well. The power, interest and value of the CC is revealed yet again.
You are most welcome. Sadly, the use of Latin in English courts has been deprecated for some 15 years, for various misguided reasons. Latin tags were phenomenally useful in conveying concepts pithily and accurately. Chris's "res ipsa loquitur", for example, has a wealth of technical meaning, which now takes ten times as long to say, using English.
I tend to use the Latin anyway, prefaced or suffixed by "as we are no longer supposed to say". It generally raises a wry smile from the judge.
Jeremy
-
I watched the BoJo address to Parliament last night, his first after the Supreme Court rulings.
The man is a national disgrace - I believe his plan is to try and out-Trump Trump in an effort to gather around him all the hard-core, right-wing nut cases in the land, which seems to be a winning hand in the US so why not the UK? His absolute disrespect for Parliament, civility and proper behaviour was unbelievable. In fact, so much so that like his political cousin across the ocean, I honestly believe he requires psychiatric attention.
There is not a lot to write about the spectacle; anyone who did not watch the display simply wouldn't believe me. Almost as bad, his official apologists this morning dealing with the Parliamentary aftermath of his shocking display of bad manners and absolute insensitivity.
From what I see, it seems that both sides of the divide have written questions complete with the written replies, which of course, makes a mockery of debate. If this is not the case, what are they looking at as they formulate (read) their responses? The interesting thing would be to see these people dealing with questions they had no way of knowing were coming at them. Never happen: they would all reveal the clay of their feet and many other parts.
Rob
-
What changes about Brexit due to the SC's decision?
-
What changes about Brexit due to the SC's decision?
I suspect, nothing. All it does is allowing bitchers & moaners (aka the parliament) to bitch and moan for the next five weeks, instead of letting the PM do what needs to be done. The Bitchers & Moaners are schizophrenic, of course. They insist on an agreement, but rejected one (three times) already. As they would reject any other but an imaginary one. There is only one agreement that is theoretically possible: the one in which one side would have to accept a total, unquestionable, humiliating defeat. As that ain’t gonna happen, they will continue to bitch and moan until the inevitable happens: hard Brexit.
Apparently, the PM is universally loathed. A non-schizophrenic B&Ms would do a simple thing: a vote of no confidence, and he is gone. Gone. But no. That would mean a new election and a possibility that Leavers would prevail, again. The opposition, Labor, couldn’t even agree, during their own conference, should they stay or should they go. They adopted a wait-and-see strategy, so that they can join the whoever prevails’ side.
-
Give it a rest, that system has been operating for quite a few centuries now. If the courts were going to take over political power it would have happened by now.
...
I just learned that the Supreme Court of GB is under 10 years old. Ten Years!! Now I'm convinced this is a power grab of the court that's going on. It's following what Chris Kern mentioned about the Marbury decision. The court becoming a reviewer of law and actions of parliament and PM (Congress and the President in the US). It will become more powerful and less democratic than what we have in America because there's no written constitution in GB defining SC powers. It may be beholden to a certain extent to the forces of the EU since it was birthed because of it. Some comments from the attached article, an opinion on the matter.
"...The British Supreme Court is a brand-new institution, still not even a decade old. It arose from Britain’s entanglement with the Continent and was drawn up, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, partly to harmonize British law with the European Convention on Human Rights...
The new Supreme Court is taking those democratic prerogatives (of Parliament) and rendering them subject to judicial correction, while retaining the language of democracy. The court is an arm of the class that brought Britain into the European Union, a homegrown element of the now-repudiated European Union itself...
...Such institutions are changing the whole of British politics. The country’s “unwritten constitution” consists of the laws Parliament passes and certain customs associated with them. Without a written constitution to circumscribe its powers, a court can seize on anything and interpret it in any direction..."
-
I just learned that the Supreme Court of GB is under 10 years old. Ten Years!!...
Ah, that young age when parents* are still seen as gods and trust in them is still unquestionable ;)
* EU
-
I suspect, nothing. All it does is allowing bitchers & moaners (aka the parliament) to bitch and moan for the next five weeks, instead of letting the PM do what needs to be done. The Bitchers & Moaners are schizophrenic, of course. They insist on an agreement, but rejected one (three times) already. As they would reject any other but an imaginary one. There is only one agreement that is theoretically possible: the one in which one side would have to accept a total, unquestionable, humiliating defeat. As that ain’t gonna happen, they will continue to bitch and moan until the inevitable happens: hard Brexit.
Apparently, the PM is universally loathed. A non-schizophrenic B&Ms would do a simple thing: a vote of no confidence, and he is gone. Gone. But no. That would mean a new election and a possibility that Leavers would prevail, again. The opposition, Labor, couldn’t even agree, during their own conference, should they stay or should they go. They adopted a wait-and-see strategy, so that they can join the whoever prevails’ side.
I agree. I asked my question tongue-in-cheek. Nothing different is going to happen with the extra three weeks. It's just to stick the PM's nose in it. More importantly, the Parliament just lost power to a group of 12 unelected judges who will decide important British law in the future. Nothing's so sweet as exercising power. It's intoxicating. You wind up upping the dosage.
-
Ah, that young age when parents* are still seen as gods and trust in them is still unquestionable ;)
* EU
If the PM had balls, he would have ignored the SC decision stating they don;t have the authority to overrule the PM and kept Parliament closed. Children aren't in charge of the home, parents are. The British will rue the day the SC grabbed this power and the government didn't stand up to it.
-
What changes about Brexit due to the SC's decision?
I suspect, nothing. All it does is allowing bitchers & moaners (aka the parliament) to bitch and moan for the next five weeks, instead of letting the PM do what needs to be done. The Bitchers & Moaners are schizophrenic, of course. They insist on an agreement, but rejected one (three times) already. As they would reject any other but an imaginary one. There is only one agreement that is theoretically possible: the one in which one side would have to accept a total, unquestionable, humiliating defeat. As that ain’t gonna happen, they will continue to bitch and moan until the inevitable happens: hard Brexit.
Apparently, the PM is universally loathed. A non-schizophrenic B&Ms would do a simple thing: a vote of no confidence, and he is gone. Gone. But no. That would mean a new election and a possibility that Leavers would prevail, again. The opposition, Labor, couldn’t even agree, during their own conference, should they stay or should they go. They adopted a wait-and-see strategy, so that they can join the whoever prevails’ side.
I agree. I asked my question tongue-in-cheek. Nothing different is going to happen with the extra three weeks. It's just to stick the PM's nose in it. More importantly, the Parliament just lost power to a group of 12 unelected judges who will decide important British law in the future. Nothing's so sweet as exercising power. It's intoxicating. You wind up upping the dosage.
I just learned that the Supreme Court of GB is under 10 years old. Ten Years!! Now I'm convinced this is a power grab of the court that's going on. It's following what Chris Kern mentioned about the Marbury decision. The court becoming a reviewer of law and actions of parliament and PM (Congress and the President in the US). It will become more powerful and less democratic than what we have in America because there's no written constitution in GB defining SC powers. It may be beholden to a certain extent to the forces of the EU since it was birthed because of it.
If the PM had balls, he would have ignored the SC decision stating they don;t have the authority to overrule the PM and kept Parliament closed. Children aren't in charge of the home, parents are. The British will rue the day the SC grabbed this power and the government didn't stand up to it.
The blind leading the blind.
-
The blind leading the blind.
So much space for such a stupid comment.
-
Apparently, the PM is universally loathed. A non-schizophrenic B&Ms would do a simple thing: a vote of no confidence, and he is gone.
Nope. The point is that if an election were called it would allow a No Deal exit without anyone being able to stop it If you want to comment on UK politics it's a good idea to read up a bit first.
-
I just learned that the Supreme Court of GB is under 10 years old. Ten Years!! Now I'm convinced this is a power grab of the court that's going on. It's following what Chris Kern mentioned about the Marbury decision. The court becoming a reviewer of law and actions of parliament and PM (Congress and the President in the US). It will become more powerful and less democratic than what we have in America because there's no written constitution in GB defining SC powers. It may be beholden to a certain extent to the forces of the EU since it was birthed because of it. Some comments from the attached article, an opinion on the matter.
"...The British Supreme Court is a brand-new institution, still not even a decade old. It arose from Britain’s entanglement with the Continent and was drawn up, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, partly to harmonize British law with the European Convention on Human Rights...
The new Supreme Court is taking those democratic prerogatives (of Parliament) and rendering them subject to judicial correction, while retaining the language of democracy. The court is an arm of the class that brought Britain into the European Union, a homegrown element of the now-repudiated European Union itself...
...Such institutions are changing the whole of British politics. The country’s “unwritten constitution” consists of the laws Parliament passes and certain customs associated with them. Without a written constitution to circumscribe its powers, a court can seize on anything and interpret it in any direction..."
The Supreme Court is merely the result of separating the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, which had existed for centuries, from the upper chamber of the legislature and giving it its own building and rules. All the members of the Committee became members of the SC when it was formed.
You don't attribute your quotations and it's easy to see why the authors would wish to remain anonymous.
The formation of the SC had nothing whatever to do with the ECHR or the EU. It was an idea dreamed up by Tony Blair one dull evening, based on his half-baked understanding of Montesquieu and lack of any sense of history or tradition, just as was his meddling with the ancient role of Lord Chancellor and creation of Lord Speaker (he wasn't even aware, when naming it, that the Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales had existed since 1875). It's not clear what your third anonymous source means by "such institutions", but he's clearly as ignorant of the British constitution as, well, some Americans who enjoy pontificating here on topics of which they know little and understand less.
Jeremy
-
Nope. The point is that if an election were called it would allow a No Deal exit without anyone being able to stop it If you want to comment on UK politics it's a good idea to read up a bit first.
Oh, shut up! How is that different from what I said?
-
Oh, shut up! How is that different from what I said?
You said that a vote of NC and he is gone, but that's not the objective. The first objective is to stop No Deal.
-
You said that a vote of NC and he is gone, but that's not the objective. The first objective is to stop No Deal.
I said the vote would lead to a new election, which might give him a new majority, thus the ability to do a hard Brexit, if need be.
-
The Supreme Court is merely the result of separating the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, which had existed for centuries, from the upper chamber of the legislature and giving it its own building and rules. All the members of the Committee became members of the SC when it was formed.
You don't attribute your quotations and it's easy to see why the authors would wish to remain anonymous.
The formation of the SC had nothing whatever to do with the ECHR or the EU. It was an idea dreamed up by Tony Blair one dull evening, based on his half-baked understanding of Montesquieu and lack of any sense of history or tradition, just as was his meddling with the ancient role of Lord Chancellor and creation of Lord Speaker (he wasn't even aware, when naming it, that the Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales had existed since 1875). It's not clear what your third anonymous source means by "such institutions", but he's clearly as ignorant of the British constitution as, well, some Americans who enjoy pontificating here on topics of which they know little and understand less.
Jeremy
Here is the opinion piece in the New York Times that I quoted. Sorry. I usually include links for accuracy and completeness of my posts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/boris-johnson-supreme-court.html
I understand your frustration about Americans giving opinions on British law, customs, etc. We get it from Britishers and other foreigners and often feel just like you? :)
-
I said the vote would lead to a new election, which might give him a new majority, thus the ability to do a hard Brexit, if need be.
But the reasons for the conscious delaying to Brexit without a deal are obvious: it would be catastrophic for Britain. MPs may well be elected by idiots as well as by very intelligent people, but by and large, I think that they are far more aware of the realities than are many so-called men and women in the street. They have to be; it's their job to be plugged in.
I am reassured - to some extent - by the fact that not all of them are willing to opt for instant popularity in the eyes of a slim majority of voter by madly going along with a course of action that is suicidal. Someone said, and I'm sorry not to remember who it was, that having the no-deal exit as a kind of bargaining tool, thinking of it as such, was equivalent to standing on the edge of a canyon and yelling at the people on the opposite side of said canyon, that unless they give you what you want you are going to jump. In essence, that is not a particularly clever bargaining tool; its removal is, in fact, a signal that you are actually a reasonable, realistic person with whom to negotiate. Do you see?
Sadly, as shown by BoJo's theatrics of hatred yesterday, there are those who are so blinded by hubris and the lust for power and that curious desire to go down "in the history books" and leave a public "legacy" behind them that they are blinded to the harm they are causing.
As I have said already today, I really do feel BoJo is not a well man.
Much of my problem with Brexit is personal due to my situation as a resident abroad with much to lose; that in no way excludes my concern for the damage and chaos that will land upon the shoulders of my family members still living in Britain, should this disaster come to pass. I am old and sitting in the departure lounge; they are not. And neither are all of the almost 50% of Brits who voted to stay with the status quo. How easily they are rendered to cyphers with the constant quoting of the number that did vote to go, when there is practically no difference at all, a mere 2% both sides of 50% marking the difference.
-
You said that a vote of NC and he is gone, but that's not the objective. The first objective is to stop No Deal.
Exactly; it's the most important existential crisis the country faces. A shame so many fail to understand that. I think of the stream of people saying the peope voted to leave; yes, they did, but they voted on a premise that was nothing but a pack of lies. When, as now, the truth is out, is it sane to continue along such a path that's based on deceit? That is not obeying the "will of the people", that is abandoning responsibility to the four winds.
An election that might return the same pack of liers or, worse, a combination government consisting of two such groups, one a single-issue party, makes for even more horrific a situation than the present one.
An election in this climate is the very last thing Britain can afford.
Frankly, only Libs have anything to offer the country, and that's the rescinding of the whole daft process. What they may offer beyond that is not necessarily wonderful.
-
I'm still confused. Can parliament reverse Brexit? If so, why aren't they? If they disagree with the public referendum, just vote to reverse. The SC have them 3 extra weeks to find the courrage.
-
It is worth noting the comments of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's sister, that a number of financial backers are betting significant amounts of money on him delivering a No Deal Brexit. As always, follow the money.
-
I'm still confused.
It happens when you don't educate yourself. But we all know you would rather blow your brains out that do even the bare minimum of background reading.
-
I'm still confused.
It happens when you don't educate yourself.
It will be a sad, sad, day indeed, sir, when everybody participating in an Internet forum shall be expected to know something about a subject before inflicting his opinions with respect to it on the other participants.
-
It happens when you don't educate yourself. But we all know you would rather blow your brains out that do even the bare minimum of background reading.
Bare minimum? You wanted me to read a 10 page essay on the subject. Reading my camera manual would be less tortuous. 😏
-
Bare minimum? You wanted me to read a 10 page essay on the subject. Reading my camera manual would be less tortuous. 😏
I assume you haven't read it either.
-
It will be a sad, sad, day indeed, sir, when everybody participating in an Internet forum shall be expected to know something about a subject before inflicting his opinions with respect to it on the other participants.
Chris, you are a rare level-headed guy among us, so you are forgiven for occasional sniping like the above, but the question Alan asked has nothing to do with “knowing the subject.” When someone asks a question, they don’t need to know the answer already, that’s exactly what asking is for.
Therefore, the answer is that of course the parliament can reverse the Brexit. Except there isn’t enough votes for that.
-
Here is the opinion piece in the New York Times that I quoted. Sorry. I usually include links for accuracy and completeness of my posts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/boris-johnson-supreme-court.html
Hey wait, I thought the New York Times was Fake News. Is it only sometimes Fake then?
-
Hey wait, I thought the New York Times was Fake News. Is it only sometimes Fake then?
If you guys learned anything from Goebbels, it is that the best propaganda is composed from truths, semi-truths, and outright lies. So, yes, the NYT can occasionally publish something truthful.
-
If you guys learned anything from Goebbels, it is that the best propaganda is composed from truths, semi-truths, and outright lies. So, yes, the NYT can occasionally publish something truthful.
Your schtick just slays me. Don't ever change. :)
-
Chris, you are a rare level-headed guy among us, so you are forgiven for occasional sniping like the above, but the question Alan asked has nothing to do with “knowing the subject.” When someone asks a question, they don’t need to know the answer already, that’s exactly what asking is for.
Therefore, the answer is that of course the parliament can reverse the Brexit. Except there isn’t enough votes for that.
Thanks for the the support. Yes, Chris is an OK guy who I count on giving good knowledgeable analysis. PS: I often ask a question not to get an answer that I already know, It's a rhetorical question just to stir debate. But I'm also not afraid to ask a question that I don;t know the answer too. There are a lot of smart people here who can provide the truth about things. Well, sometimes. :)
So if Parliament wants Brexit and the people want Brexit, what's holding it up? All this stuff with the SC and wringing of hands is just show. They got to get on with it. Make the best deal they can with the EU and move on.
-
Hey wait, I thought the New York Times was Fake News. Is it only sometimes Fake then?
Robert, Click on the link again, Notice at the top it says OPINION. That's because it's OPINION, not news. It's part of the Op-Ed page where opinion pieces are located. The paper invites outside people to submit opinion pieces that they publish. In full disclosure, the writer of the OPINION is Christopher Caldwell an American journalist and senior editor at The Weekly Standard, as well as a regular contributor to the Financial Times and Slate. The Standard is a conservative, Republican leaning publication.
"Fake news" refers to the news section where you would ordinarily expect unbiased reporting. It's there that the NY TImes slants the news in their liberal, pro-Democratic party, anti-Trump way. It's a shame. Although they always have been biased in their news, it's never been so obvious and one-sided as recently. They've sold their soul for political power. They've lost their way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/boris-johnson-supreme-court.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/boris-johnson-supreme-court.html)
-
I said the vote would lead to a new election, which might give him a new majority, thus the ability to do a hard Brexit, if need be.
So boring. You said:
That would mean a new election and a possibility that Leavers would prevail, again
But the point (as I said, and as you'd know if you learned a bit about what you comment on with such arrogance) is that the election ITSELF would lead to No Deal, REGARDLESS OF WHO WON.
-
... the election ITSELF would lead to No Deal, REGARDLESS OF WHO WON.
Can you explain, please? Preferably without condescension. We are here to help each other understand. If I said something incorrectly, you could simply correct it, so that we can all learn.
-
Can you explain, please? Preferably without condescension. We are here to help each other understand. If I said something incorrectly, you could simply correct it, so that we can all learn.
Slobodan, there's a great deal of misinformation around, not only here but in our national media, who spout nonsense such as "parliament voted to outlaw no deal". The position, somewhat (but not hugely) simplifed, is this.
1. In March 2017 we gave notice, pursuant to Article 50 of the relevant treaty, that we intend to leave the EU. This followed the coming into force of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, permitting the PM to give it.
2. That notice has effect two years after it was given, unless we request, and all the other 27 countries unanimously agree, to defer the date of leaving.
3. We made such a request, and it was agreed, earlier this year. That is why the date, which was the end of March, is now the end of October.
4. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, known colloquially as the Benn Act after its originator, mandates the Prime Minister to request a further extension if no deal has been agreed.
5. It does not, and cannot, mandate a further extension, since such an extension requires the unanimous consent of the other 27.
6. Although the wording of Article 50 contains no such provision, the European Court of Justice has decided that a member state which has given notice to leave may withdraw that notice, provided it does so in good faith.
7. The only way in which Parliament can actually prevent our leaving on 31st October without a deal is to decide to revoke the notice given under Article 50 (a procedure almost universally, and wrongly, described as "revoking Article 50").
8. If nothing further is done, however, the default position is that we leave on 31st October.
That is why an election, which (depending on the way in which it was triggered) probably could not now take place before 31st October, would accomplish nothing much; we would probably have left by the time it took place.
"Probably"? Yes; because even if parliament is dissolved (which is wholly different from prorogued), the ministers of the Crown, including the PM, remain in office; and the obligation on the PM to request a further extension remains in force. There are various mutterings about mechanisms he might use to avoid the obligation, but none seems to have much validity.
I hope that clarifies matters a little.
Jeremy
-
4. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, known colloquially as the Benn Act after its originator, mandates the Prime Minister to request a further extension if no deal has been agreed.
... and a further discussion can be found here:
https://waitingfortax.com/2019/09/15/the-flaw-in-the-benn-act/
and here:
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1177268281239097344?s=19
6. Although the wording of Article 50 contains no such provision, the European Court of Justice has decided that a member state which has given notice to leave may withdraw that notice, provided it does so in good faith.
The member state may unilaterally revoke its notice under Art50 to depart the EU following
“ ... a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council. Such a revocation confirms the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State and brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.”
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/cp180191en.pdf
-
... and a further discussion can be found here:
https://waitingfortax.com/2019/09/15/the-flaw-in-the-benn-act/
and here:
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1177268281239097344?s=19
The member state may unilaterally revoke its notice under Art50 to depart the EU following
“ ... a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council. Such a revocation confirms the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State and brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.”
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/cp180191en.pdf
"Good faith" brings up an interesting question: were BoJo to make such a withdrawal request, would - could - it be granted under such a concept as good faith?
I hope very much it comes to such a decision.
Rob
-
If there won't be elections, and parliament won't vote to end Brexit, of what value was the SC's decision? What is parliament going to do in the interim?
Assuming Brexit goes through, what is the EU and Britain doing to assure trade and other important cross-channel relationships continue uninterrupted?
-
Can Johnson bypass the Benn Act?
James Blitz for the FT today, September 27, 2019
Can Boris Johnson get around the Benn Act? This is a question much under discussion at Westminster today, with some MPs wondering whether the UK might still end up plunging into a no-deal Brexit on October 31.
A reminder: the Benn Act is the anti-no deal legislation that compels the prime minister to seek a three-month extension to Article 50 if he cannot get a Brexit deal agreed by the end of the European Council on October 17-18.
Tabled by Labour MP Hilary Benn, it was passed by a Rebel Alliance of opposition MPs and Conservative rebels earlier this month. It basically means that if the PM cannot get a Brexit deal in three weeks’ time, the UK won’t crash out on October 31.
John Major, the former prime minister, caused a stir last night when he said in a speech that he thought the Act could be bypassed.
He said: “My fear is that the government will seek to bypass Statute Law, by passing an Order of Council to suspend the Act until after 31 October. It is important to note that an Order of Council can be passed by Privy Councillors — that is government ministers — without involving HM The Queen.”
I asked Jo Maugham QC, one of the main campaigners behind this week’s Supreme Court victory, whether he thought Sir John’s fears were well founded. He said not.
Mr Maugham said: “The notion that this legislation can be suppressed by a government in such a way unilaterally defies everything we understand about the primacy of parliament.”
Mr Maugham thinks an alternative course of action for the government could be to disapply the Benn Act by recourse to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. This allows existing legislation to be suspended in the event of a national emergency.
But Mr Maugham said: “This isn’t applicable in circumstances like these. There is no likely emergency that could possibly require the Benn Act to be suspended.”
Professor Mark Elliott of Cambridge university is of a similar view. He tweeted today: “An ‘emergency’ means threats of serious damage to human welfare, the environment or national security. No emergency exists or is imminent that would justify suspension of the Benn . . . Act.”
For Mr Maugham, the Benn Act looks watertight. The one area of uncertainty is what Mr Johnson will do when the moment comes to apply for an Article 50 extension — something he has said he would never do.
One could imagine a situation in which he refuses to apply for an extension, saying this has been imposed on him by parliament and in defiance of the will of the people. As a result, the extension might be formally applied for by a Whitehall official such as the Cabinet Secretary or by a court clerk.
One Downing Street figure told me this morning that he genuinely doesn’t know what Mr Johnson will do in these circumstances. My guess is that the Benn Act will be applied. But Mr Johnson will go out of his way to demonstrate, ahead of an election, that the “Surrender Act” was imposed on him against his will.
-
"Good faith" brings up an interesting question: were BoJo to make such a withdrawal request, would - could - it be granted under such a concept as good faith?
I hope very much it comes to such a decision.
I’m not sure I’ve correctly understood your question, but ‘good faith” was Jeremy’s wording. It doesn't appear in the ECJ’s decision of Dec last year.
The ECJ affirmed the UK’s right to simply rescind notification under Art50 as long as it’s in accordance with UK constitutional obligations. It’s not a request, simply a written notification. If Parliament decides to stay in EU, all they’ve got to do is say “forget it boys, stuff it, we’re staying” and that is that.
Or, as the LibDems are wont to say “Bollocks to Brexit” :)
-
PS: I often ask a question not to get an answer that I already know, It's a rhetorical question just to stir debate.
In other words, trolling.
-
In other words, trolling.
Asking a rhetorical question to make a point whose answer is already understood is a higher level of debate. I suppose you're not familiar with its principle. On the other hand, calling someone a troll is just a personal attack not requiring much knowledge or thought. You seem to be more comfortable with the latter.
-
... I hope that clarifies matters a little.
Perhaps, but it still doesn't answer the question why would elections mean a no-deal brexit under all and any circumstances. Boris has been a PM since July, plenty of time to call for a vote of no confidence and new elections. Under at least one scenario, Remainers get a majority and simply say "Bollocks to Brexit." What am I missing?
-
The remainders are afraid of losing.
-
Ps. Was that a rhetorical question? Or were you just trolling? 😏
-
Perhaps, but it still doesn't answer the question why would elections mean a no-deal brexit under all and any circumstances. Boris has been a PM since July, plenty of time to call for a vote of no confidence and new elections. Under at least one scenario, Remainers get a majority and simply say "Bollocks to Brexit." What am I missing?
Chance, Slobodan, chance.
Nobody but the BoJo Conspiracy wants an election because nobody knows how it would turn out, and the main event on the show is doing all that can be done to prevent a Brexit without a deal tied into it. BoJo wants it (an election) because he would use the time required to set up an election etc. to stall and thus evade the moment for going to Europe to ask for an extension, leaving the clock running down right past the last minute when Britain would, by default, find itself outside the door, wondering what had hit it, and would kind Mr Trump please turn it into star #51, sir?
Whether he won or lost the election wouldn't matter much to him because the grand exit would have been achieved, along with his single line in the famous history books. You do realise, of course, that BoJo does not want a deal? That's what all the trouble is about. None of his blood brothers wants one; they belong in another world of fantasy and easy living where it matters not a jot what happens to Britain or Ireland because they are all right, Jack, the money's both safely invested and banked abroad. The buzz is in the naked exercise of power and thumbing the collective nose at everyone else. There is not a little pleasure in knowing that his brand has been able to sway so many uninformed people his way. How they may react when the cars stop being made, the prices of everything in the shops go up, holidays in Spain become unaffordable, the remaining cheap airlines fold (two went today in Germany), the foreign nurses and doctors desert the hospitals and local medical practices, and the social security can't keep pace with unemployment benefits and pension payments is another matter. He and his cohorts may find themselves virtual prisoners in their homes. Maybe they can get helicoptered safely away like at the fall of Vietnam.
It's a one-item matter insofar as Parliament is concerned: prevent the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit.
-
... Nobody ... wants an election because nobody knows how it would turn out...
And that is the crux of the matter. One would think that, by now, the public is fully aware of all the lies and false arguments, nefarious motives, diabolical politicians, and the horrific consequence of Brexit, let alone the no-deal one. If so, the public would overwhelmingly vote for Remain parties, no? Or vote to remain in the second referendum, if it comes to that.
But you are not sure of that. Which means that the sentiment of the majority of the population, as well as the members of the parliament, is, still in favor of leave. Which means that it was not the lies during the first campaign that mattered, because those have been exposed as such in the last two years, but a deeper sentiment.
-
Perhaps, but it still doesn't answer the question why would elections mean a no-deal brexit under all and any circumstances. Boris has been a PM since July, plenty of time to call for a vote of no confidence and new elections. Under at least one scenario, Remainers get a majority and simply say "Bollocks to Brexit." What am I missing?
Leave with no deal on 31st Oct is the default situation. The moment an election is called, Parliament is suspended and nobody can do anything to stop it.
Boris has been PM since July but Parliament has been on holiday for most of that, and the Conservatives have (had) a majority so it's by no means certain that a vote of NC would succeed.
-
The remainders are afraid of losing.
The election is not leave vs remain.
-
And that is the crux of the matter. One would think that, by now, the public is fully aware of all the lies and false arguments, nefarious motives, diabolical politicians, and the horrific consequence of Brexit, let alone the no-deal one. If so, the public would overwhelmingly vote for Remain parties, no? Or vote to remain in the second referendum, if it comes to that.
1. But you are not sure of that.
2. Which means that the sentiment of the majority of the population, as well as the members of the parliament, is, still in favor of leave. Which means that it was not the lies during the first campaign that mattered, because those have been exposed as such in the last two years, but a deeper sentiment.
1. Nobody is sure of anything.
2. That does not follow; that is merely your own political slant being expressed, which as you are now an American, I understand.
As I also understand from today's morning news, BoJo, disciple of Trump, is now possibly about to be investigated by the police on suspicion that he misused his position as Mayor, along with funds, to favour a brassy American woman whom he promoted beyond her rightful level of business project value, and on whose part he intervened to get her onto several foreign business trips. I wonder what her side of the bargain was, or whether it was just another example of Johnsonia altruism? ;-)
Believe it or not, the "government" is now calling that investigation political action, which indicates to me that not only has UK already been sold forward to the US, but current US political diversionary tactics have been enshrined into the New Conservative party doctrine. How effin' ugly.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/27/boris-johnson-referred-to-police-watchdog-over-potential-misconduct
Again, I feel robbed of my party.
-
The moment an election is called, Parliament is suspended and nobody can do anything to stop it.
Hate to be so punctilious but some here obsess over such ...
Parliament is dissolved, not suspended. Though the PM and ministers retain their positions and titles, MP’s do not. Nor, in the interim, are MP’s allowed to use the ‘MP’ suffix after their name , pending re-election.
Apologies.
-
Hate to be so punctilious but some here obsess over such ...
Parliament is dissolved, not suspended. Though the PM and ministers retain their positions and titles, MP’s do not. Nor, in the interim, are MP’s allowed to use the ‘MP’ suffix after their name , pending re-election.
Apologies.
:-)
-
Philip Hammond, today in The Times.
Philip Hammond: I no longer recognise this party of radicals
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-no-longer-recognise-this-party-of-radicals-cpdmxcxwf
also,
recent tweet by Mary Creagh, MP
The Cabinet Office has been asked to investigate whether Boris Johnson could be in breach of the ministerial code by not declaring any financial connection to hedge fund donors who contributed substantially to his leadership election campaign.
A complaint was lodged in August with Helen MacNamara, director-general of the Propriety and Ethics Team, about Johnson’s financial connections to the bankrollers of his leadership campaign. This was before the extent of Johnson’s reliance on hedge fund donors, many of whom funded the Vote Leave campaign in 2016 which Boris Johnson paid (*) a prominent role was revealed.
* edit : pretty sure she meant ‘played’.
Details and charts:
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/
-
Watch this for more insight:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zAkMhEqWFF0#fauxfullscreen
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ksLySMWRwLs#fauxfullscreen
Particularly interesting, if you know who be the players in the current Conservative nest of:
https://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/rees-mogg-set-for-1m-golden-goodbye-as-he-bows-out-of-boutique/a1258155
https://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/jacob-rees-mogg-s-firm-distributes-over-25-million-to-partners/a1142453?section=wealth-manager
From the last one, you will note the faith they have in a post-Brexit Britain... and unbelievably, the lemmings still follow. One assumes, therefore, they (the lemmings) cannot, or more likely, will not read because it could dent their "patriotic" position.
-
... and to pre-empt anyone disputing the excessive short positioning, latest JP Morgan data shows IMM shorts against the US dollar to now exceed the previous high (low) in March 2017
Are you saying that because someone is betting on a certain outcome, they are causing that outcome? Or, in other words, if I bet on a certain horse, I am causing it to win the race?
Besides, betting that the pound would fall, short-term, after Brexit, and in particular the hard one, is a no-brainer.
-
Are you saying that because someone is betting on a certain outcome, they are causing that outcome? Or, in other words, if I bet on a certain horse, I am causing it to win the race?
Besides, betting that the pound would fall, short-term, after Brexit, and in particular the hard one, is a no-brainer.
That's why, obviously, the gang is doing what it's doing.
The secondary objective, of course, is to make my personal pension sink ever lower until I can no longer afford the Internet and publish revealing information. It's difficult to do battle with a richer person. That's the beauty of democracy: everyone is equal except where it counts.
Rob
;-(
-
... One assumes, therefore, they (the lemmings) cannot, or more likely, will not read...
Fearing the dreaded label “lemming,” I read it.
So? The guy got dividends. I get them every quarter too (much smaller, though). That’s how investment funds and partnerships operate. Every year and in every country.
Is having a profit and distributing it to those who created it a new crime in Britain now?
-
That's why, obviously, the gang is doing what it's doing.
Betting on an almost certain outcome is not going to make anyone particularly rich. Betting on a rise of Pound, however...
-
Are you saying that because someone is betting on a certain outcome, they are causing that outcome? Or, in other words, if I bet on a certain horse, I am causing it to win the race?
All that needs to be said at this time is said in reply #1364.
There may be a breach of the ministerial code.
-
Which means that the sentiment of the majority of the population, as well as the members of the parliament, is, still in favor of leave.
This isn't the case. A majority of MPs backed Remain (a majority of the population may or may not favour Leave.)
-
Continuing, on a more serious note, Jolyon Maugham QC has invited the Prime Minister to ‘nob off’.
Attached screenshot explains all:
(Don’t you just LUV it!)
-
It seems the are a lot of diversionary discussions about corruption, who really told the truth, SC decisions, and other arcane issues. These are all "beside the point" if and when Brexit happens a few weeks from now. Much like what's happening here in the US, the real national issues aren't being discussed. Here, it's immigration, debt, foreign affairs, etc. But everyone would rather discuss what Trump told a comedian in the Ukraine.
In GB, it seems that the main question should be what are the Brits going to do when Brexit happens. Are any plans being discussed for this probably eventuality? Are they prepared for it?
-
In GB, it seems that the main question should be what are the Brits going to do when Brexit happens. Are any plans being discussed for this probably eventuality? Are they prepared for it?
A quick google search leads you to the following:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/no-deal-brexit-preparations
If you read the news, Boris Johnson's government is ostensibly working hard on preparations for a no deal Brexit, although details are scarce.
-
That's the beauty of democracy: everyone is equal except where it counts.
Rob
;-(
Excellent!
-
This isn't the case. A majority of MPs backed Remain ...
If so, what is stopping that majority to vote to revoke the Notice? Today?
-
A quick google search leads you to the following:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/no-deal-brexit-preparations (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/no-deal-brexit-preparations)
If you read the news, Boris Johnson's government is ostensibly working hard on preparations for a no deal Brexit, although details are scarce.
But no one in this forum is discussing these things. Trade, the border, medicine, transportation, international agreements, law, etc. All these things will be profoundly changed once Brexit happens. What should be done? What's best for Britain? etc. So it's being ignored. Let Boris worry about it. OK. He certainly seems competent. :)
-
Fearing the dreaded label “lemming,” I read it.
So? The guy got dividends. I get them every quarter too (much smaller, though). That’s how investment funds and partnerships operate. Every year and in every country.
Is having a profit and distributing it to those who created it a new crime in Britain now?
Slobodan, you are ignoring the direct connection between shorting the pound and getting campaign funds to the tune of many zillions from people/companies doing just that. Do you not get it that driving the pound down by creating doubts about the value of the pound sterling is what the mad, and now violent driving towards a bad Brexit is what BoJo and his closest allies are doing? I believe that's the underlying point of it all, because apart from money, they stand to gain nothing from any other form of Brexit except this: if they manage to pull it off and get back into a majority governmemt, they place themselves in an unassailable position to pass whatever financial laws they see fit for their own best advantage.
The visible Tory party of the past no longer exists: the disguise has been tossed into the recycle bin.
And no, you have no need to advise me about share ownership and dividends.
Rob
-
Slobodan, you are ignoring the direct connection between shorting the pound and getting campaign funds to the tune of many zillions from people/companies doing just that. Do you not get it ...
Rob,
1. Your "lemming" reference, to which I was responding in the part you quoted, was in relation to a totally different issue, nothing to do with shorting. Check your own links, it was in respect to annual capital gains distribution, typically required by law, among the partners of the investment fund.
2. As for shorting, seeing an investment opportunity and pouncing on it is what investors do. Since shorting the pound is such a no-brainer, no one stands to win much. Betting against what everybody else expects, however, is guaranteed to deliver a huge win (if the surprise happens, of course).
The way shorting works, the more likely the shorted event is to happen, the more shorting contracts become expensive. In the end, while you might win the prediction, you paid a high price for it.
-
Rob,
1. Your "lemming" reference, to which I was responding in the part you quoted, was in relation to a totally different issue, nothing to do with shorting. Check your own links, it was in respect to annual capital gains distribution, typically required by law, among the partners of the investment fund.
2. As for shorting, seeing an investment opportunity and pouncing on it is what investors do. Since shorting the pound is such a no-brainer, no one stands to win much. Betting against what everybody else expects, however, is guaranteed to deliver a huge win (if the surprise happens, of course).
The way shorting works, the more likely the shorted event is to happen, the more shorting contracts become expensive. In the end, while you might win the prediction, you paid a high price for it.
https://reaction.life/no-deal-brexit-how-some-traders-will-be-gearing-up-to-short-the-pound/
That's how they still make it pay as it slides downwards.
-
If it's comforting to know, in America, Congressmen and Senators may invest in companies before laws are passed affecting their industry. So that their prices go up or down depending on the legislation. The lawmakers know what laws are coming down before passing them. So they invest having this insider information. It's not illegal. For them. Everyone else who trades on insider information goes to jail.
-
https://reaction.life/no-deal-brexit-how-some-traders-will-be-gearing-up-to-short-the-pound/
That's how they still make it pay as it slides downwards.
This is how little Johnny imagines shorting works (form the linked article, bold mine):
traders will be “shorting” the pound, which is when they offer to sell pounds for delivery after the Brexit deadline at a fixed value that they are likely to profit from. For example, they could offer to sell the pound at its current value of around US$1.21, for delivery on November 1, the day after Brexit. They then wait for the currency to fall and buy it on the spot market, where trades take place immediately – thereby pocketing the profit from selling them at US$1.21, having bought them at a much lower rate.
Ok, let's see. Imagine, Rob, you have enough money to play this game. Also, remember that every trade has two sides, buy and sell. So, for the sellers to make a killing, they have to find buyers first. Who in their sane mind, and at this point, would be willing to commit to buy the pound at the current rate ($1.21) on November 1st? Would you?
As I said, shorting works when it goes against the tide, not with. When everybody expects the pound to crash, nobody is going to make much money.
-
... So they invest having this insider information. It's not illegal. For them...
That I doubt. If it is insider information, it is illegal, for everyone. That some got away with it, like the former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, is because it is difficult to discover and prove, not because it is legal for them.
-
This is how little Johnny imagines shorting works (form the linked article, bold mine):
Ok, let's see. Imagine, Rob, you have enough money to play this game. Also, remember that every trade has two sides, buy and sell. So, for the sellers to make a killing, they have to find buyers first. Who in their sane mind, and at this point, would be willing to commit to buy the pound at the current rate ($1.21) on November 1st? Would you?
As I said, shorting works when it goes against the tide, not with. When everybody expects the pound to crash, nobody is going to make much money.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=ipad_bm&source=hp&ei=K62PXaWaH6WLjLsPmaWD4AI&q=how+to+sell+short&oq=how+to+sell+short&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.3..0i19l8.2370.9646..11969...0.0..0.136.1401.16j1......0....1.......8..41j41i19j41i13i30j41i10j41i22i30j41i22i30i19j0i131j0j5j46j46i131j46i131i275j46i275j0i22i30.hfKXMKeiyFU
The point is that in the Brexit scenario, there is still a way to go, and as the expected state of a bad-Brexit Britain and its currency deteriorates, yet more time to continue the game. It's gambling, and these cats are very rich and able to sit at that table as long as they think it works. It's not their only pot.
And other players jump in at different levels of the graph, holding for as long as their nerve does before they chicken out and act to close their hand.
What I would do is neither here nor there: I can't sit at the table. But by nature, I wouldn't play at all.
Add this little one to see what it's turning out to be all about:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht40yrt3VrY
-
That I doubt. If it is insider information, it is illegal, for everyone. That some got away with it, like the former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, is because it is difficult to discover and prove, not because it is legal for them.
The thing is it's not insider information about the company that let's say a CEO might have. Lawmakers are making public policy with legislation that would affect an industry not necessarily a particular company. So they link is somewhat tenuous. I believe there may be rules against this within Congress itself. But I don;t know of anyone there who was ever prosecuted. In any case, the point as was making is the similarity with Britain and Brexit and lawmakers investing on the effect of Brexit. Will any minister vote to protect their investments rather than help their country? I wouldn't want to invest a bet against human nature. :)
-
If so, what is stopping that majority to vote to revoke the Notice? Today?
I'm not sure about this, but I think that only the PM can instigate it, not Parliament.
There is an entire party wanting to do this: the Libs. For the time being, at least, they would get my vote if I could vote at the coming election. As you know, I couldn't even vote for or against Brexit, despite being more closely connected to the result than are those millions who voted to jump off the yacht or keep dry.
I think it was around this point that I began to feel there was something less than obvious going down behind the scenes; such apparent unfairness was distinctly uncharacteristic.
-
If so, what is stopping that majority to vote to revoke the Notice? Today?
Democracy. The people voted for Brexit.
-
Democracy. The people voted for Brexit.
It seems to me not unreasonable to imply the caveat "with the least damage possible" rather than "with the most damage possible", although there should be some middle ground.
-
It seems to me not unreasonable to imply the caveat "with the least damage possible" rather than "with the most damage possible", although there should be some middle ground.
Agreed but that's the conundrum. Johnson says he wants to "get Brexit done" but he himself voted twice against May's deal.
-
https://www.facebook.com/bbccomedy/videos/390457938551627/
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dmjTPr8j5p4#fauxfullscreen
Rob
-
And for those with belief in gnomes and their nefarious ways of working:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pI54yarKz_o#fauxfullscreen
:-)
-
I was looking through the Ultima Hora newspaper today whilst having a coffee; I came across an interesting item concerning the collapsed travel company, Thomas Cook.
Actually, the article was only incidentally about Cook, but generally about the problems facing Britain and America with the trade wars they are waging with China, the main thrust being about the way China has managed to spread its influence across most of the business world without firing a shot.
The point was made that Britain, desperately trying to position itself as the numer uno ally of the States, has made itself subject to pretty much the same Chinese disapproval as the States receives. And here's the interesting thing, which I have never seen published or mentioned regarding Thomas Cook's collapse: Chinese money controls 75% of the company.
Does it take a genius to figure that when it comes to international trade battles, a delicate little lesson for the British Tory party might come in useful now and again? Withholding more required funds worked very well, I guess. I wonder how many TC employees or Tory voters knew about that 75% holding? I sure had no idea; I imagined it was German money from Neckermann had bought it. Instead, two birds and a single stone...
And meanwhile, a post-Brexit Britain is dreaming of expansive trade deals with China.
Which goes to show you that if you want to find out more about your own country, whoever you are, you gotta read the foreign press.
-
And for those with belief in gnomes and their nefarious ways of working:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pI54yarKz_o#fauxfullscreen
:-)
Interesting silence on that one.
;-)
-
And here's the interesting thing, which I have never seen published or mentioned regarding Thomas Cook's collapse: Chinese money controls 75% of the company.
Not quite, Rob. There was a deal in prospect, in which Fosun would have bought 75% of the company, but it didn't happen.
Jeremy
-
As an aside, my wife and I thought about taking a trip to Europe in a few weeks, maybe in November. But with Brexit about to happen, is that going to create any confusion or problems especially for travelers? What about in England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, North Ireland, etc? How about in continental Europe?
-
November is a low season in Europe, you won't have any problems booking a car or accommodation. But bring an umbrella and a camera with a fast lens.
-
As an aside, my wife and I thought about taking a trip to Europe in a few weeks, maybe in November.
bring an umbrella and a camera with a fast lens.
And don't forget your MAGA cap! You'll be an instant sensation with the locals everywhere you travel.
-
I don't have a MAGA hat. How about a rebel flag jacket?
https://images.app.goo.gl/Mb249zW61TTvG36c7
-
Not quite, Rob. There was a deal in prospect, in which Fosun would have bought 75% of the company, but it didn't happen.
Jeremy
I thought they already owned that proportion but refused to pour in any more money?
Either way, it did the trick!
Rob
Oops I accidentally locked the thread.
-
What does this mean? How is it different than what was suppose to happen before the SC declared the Johnson prorogation "unconstitutional?
"Parliament is expected to be suspended Tuesday evening until October 14 to give Johnson's government the chance to set out a new legislative agenda in a "Queen's Speech." This comes after the Supreme Court ruled Johnson's previous request for a suspension of Parliament — or "prorogation" — was illegal, because it shut down debate for what it said was an unreasonable amount of time.
On October 17 and 18, a summit of EU leaders will take place in Brussels ahead of the crucial date of October 19, when Johnson must ask the EU for a Brexit delay if a deal, or a no-deal Brexit, hasn't been approved by Parliament."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brexit-news-british-government-says-brexit-deal-essentially-impossible/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brexit-news-british-government-says-brexit-deal-essentially-impossible/)
-
What does this mean? How is it different than what was suppose to happen before the SC declared the Johnson prorogation "unconstitutional?
"Parliament is expected to be suspended Tuesday evening until October 14 to give Johnson's government the chance to set out a new legislative agenda in a "Queen's Speech." This comes after the Supreme Court ruled Johnson's previous request for a suspension of Parliament — or "prorogation" — was illegal, because it shut down debate for what it said was an unreasonable amount of time.
It's for a shorter period.
Jeremy
-
Johnson made a deal with the EU. What does it mean? Will it fly in parliament?
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770860962/britains-johnson-hails-new-brexit-deal-with-eu
-
There's a new prime ministerial ethic: you write a letter you are legally obliged to write but you don't sign it. You then send a signed letter saying you don't really want what the unsigned letter says that you need from the recipient.
So you thought only Mr T was inventive and economical with fact? Frankly, I think both he and our PM are off their heads. I think I believe it will all end with the men in white coats and ambulances.
What a world we have allowed; what scoundrels we employ.
Rob
-
So you thought only Mr T was inventive and economical with fact? Frankly, I think both he and our PM are off their heads.
While they're both mendacious, I think the difference is that Boris is calculating—from this side of the Atlantic, at least, it appears he would be equally happy with his Brexit "deal" and a snap election or yet-another delay and a snap election—while Trump seems to be genuinely irrational, making decisions on a whim at the spur of the moment with no real understanding of their context or consequences.
-
There's a new prime ministerial ethic: you write a letter you are legally obliged to write but you don't sign it. You then send a signed letter saying you don't really want what the unsigned letter says that you need from the recipient.
So you thought only Mr T was inventive and economical with fact? Frankly, I think both he and our PM are off their heads. I think I believe it will all end with the men in white coats and ambulances.
What a world we have allowed; what scoundrels we employ.
Rob
Is he 10 years old? Why can't we have leaders that understand that their actions have real effects on peoples' lives - it's not just form room japes any more :-(
-
Why can't we have leaders that understand that their actions have real effects on peoples' lives - it's not just form room japes any more :-(
I recently listened to a talk/interview podcast given by political economist from Brown's University that partly addresses this question. The podcast is an hour long. It it titled Global Trumpism but it has little to do with Trump himself, he just uses the phrase as a stand-in for the kind of pathological public governance we see around the world. Podcast link is https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/global-trumpism-bailouts-brexit-and-battling-climate-change-1.5321199 (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/global-trumpism-bailouts-brexit-and-battling-climate-change-1.5321199). It is part of CBC Radio's IDEAS series. It's not about the day to day of politics but takes a longer term view. He throws in an occasional wisecrack and has a Scottish accent, so he's entertaining too.
-
Is he 10 years old? Why can't we have leaders that understand that their actions have real effects on peoples' lives - it's not just form room japes any more :-(
I believe it comes down to the little inner group of the Conservative party - what, twenty-four or so of them? - that wags the body of the party which consists of a much larger number of members. I have said before that I always voted Conservative when I lived in the country, but I can tell you that has turned 180 degrees: I could never vote their way again after the revelation of the cancer at the party's centre: it is as corrupted any other political group that I can think of, only it has, until now, managed to hide it behind a neat business suit with matching tie; never has the guise of gentleman been so openly ripped aside to reveal the horror within. I hate them for their arrogance and absolute equanimity about lying to everyone, including, obviously, themselves.
The schoolboy pranks, no doubt, are but a Peter Pan complex encouraged through the required reading set up by their nannies. I wonder what Wendy would think of it all.
:-)
-
I recently listened to a talk/interview podcast given by political economist from Brown's University that partly addresses this question. The podcast is an hour long. It it titled Global Trumpism but it has little to do with Trump himself, he just uses the phrase as a stand-in for the kind of pathological public governance we see around the world. Podcast link is https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/global-trumpism-bailouts-brexit-and-battling-climate-change-1.5321199 (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/global-trumpism-bailouts-brexit-and-battling-climate-change-1.5321199). It is part of CBC Radio's IDEAS series. It's not about the day to day of politics but takes a longer term view. He throws in an occasional wisecrack and has a Scottish accent, so he's entertaining too.
Robert, I didn't have the time to listen to "Global Trumpism". But I did read the caption. Isn't it wrong to blame Trump or Johnson for that matter for what's going on today? They didn't cause the problems. They are the result of the problems caused by previous politicians who governed the way they did.
Many regular Americans and Brits feel they have been left behind. That there's a special class of rich and connected people who run the countries benefiting themselves. In America, Sanders as well as Trump, sensed that unhappiness. Apparently Johnson did as well. But I'm not that familiar with the situation in GB. Today, the socialist tendencies in America pushed by Sanders, Warren, AOC, and others, are feeding off that unhappiness although most Americans aren't yet ready for Socialism. They still believe in the American Dream. But the chemistry for another 2008 financial recession, or worse, are in the cards what with all the debt both parties have created, and printing of money by the Federal Reserve Bank. Others will have to explain if similar problems cause Brexit. But i think, regardless of the reason, the end result was the alienation of citizens on both sides of the Atlantic.
If you're in the listening mood, and watching too as it's a 20 minute video, here's a good explanation of why 2008 financial crisis it's going to happen again, and probably very soon.
https://schiffgold.com/videos/peter-schiff-the-fed-will-try-again-but-its-not-going-to-work/ (https://schiffgold.com/videos/peter-schiff-the-fed-will-try-again-but-its-not-going-to-work/)
-
Robert, I didn't have the time to listen to "Global Trumpism". But I did read the caption. Isn't it wrong to blame Trump or Johnson for that matter for what's going on today? They didn't cause the problems. They are the result of the problems caused by previous politicians who governed the way they did.
So you didn't listen to it but are making comments about it.
As I pointed out, the talk was NOT about Trump, he was simply using the title phrase for convenience, which he explains early in the talk. IN FACT, he doesn't blame Trump and he doesn't mention Johnson at all (that I remember). He tangentially refers to Trump and Brexit as symptoms of a wider problem. Your comments are utterly beside the point.
You have criticized a few posters for not including some introductory statements when presenting a link, as per forum rules. I have to ask, if you're not going to pay attention to those introductory remarks, nor listen to or read the contents of the linked material, why would you feel that your opinions are then relevant. This is incoherent.
The podcast was provided for edification because I thought it represented an interesting outlook. Your opinion about something you haven't heard is of no interest to me.
-
So you didn't listen to it but are making comments about it.
Remember, he said rather blow his brains out than do a minimal amount of reading.
-
So you didn't listen to it but are making comments about it.
As I pointed out, the talk was NOT about Trump, he was simply using the title phrase for convenience, which he explains early in the talk. IN FACT, he doesn't blame Trump and he doesn't mention Johnson at all (that I remember). He tangentially refers to Trump and Brexit as symptoms of a wider problem. Your comments are utterly beside the point.
You have criticized a few posters for not including some introductory statements when presenting a link, as per forum rules. I have to ask, if you're not going to pay attention to those introductory remarks, nor listen to or read the contents of the linked material, why would you feel that your opinions are then relevant. This is incoherent.
The podcast was provided for edification because I thought it represented an interesting outlook. Your opinion about something you haven't heard is of no interest to me.
Robert, I understand very well what his point was without listening. It was described clearly in the article you linked to with the podcast. Maybe you should read it. The article explained the podcast better than your post.
My point is since it had nothing to do with Trump, he should not have "conveniently" called it "Global Trumpism" It sounds like another smear of Trump. Trump didn't cause why people wanted Trump. The article clearly stated it was government policies of the past that created the atmosphere where a Trump could be elected. I expanded that to include Boris Johnson because similar past history created similar policies that got Brexit approved and Johnson elected. Trust me. I'm keeping up. :)
-
Remember, he said rather blow his brains out than do a minimal amount of reading.
Apparently, you neither listened to the podcast or read the article describing it. You're not keeping up. :)
-
Apparently, you neither listened to the podcast or read the article describing it. You're not keeping up. :)
I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. I don't comment on every post.
-
Robert, I understand very well what his point was without listening. It was described clearly in the article you linked to with the podcast. Maybe you should read it. The article explained the podcast better than your post.
How do you know if you didn't listen to it? In any case, you are incorrect and have misunderstood, and at this point, I would say that this is deliberate on your part.
You have missed the point completely, but that's ok, I did not post the link specifically for you to listen or respond to. It was for general information. It has become abundantly clear that you believe that it is your job to keep repeating the same sound bites regardless of the current subject matter.
-
How do you know if you didn't listen to it? In any case, you are incorrect and have misunderstood, and at this point, I would say that this is deliberate on your part.
You have missed the point completely, but that's ok, I did not post the link specifically for you to listen or respond to. It was for general information. It has become abundantly clear that you believe that it is your job to keep repeating the same sound bites regardless of the current subject matter.
Who listens to every podcast posted in a forum? Especially one hour podcasts? Most of the time, I read the summaries provided. If the writer summarized the podcast poorly, shame on him. That's not my problem. I didn't misunderstand anything. I'll let others read the article and judge if I misunderstand his point.
-
Who listens to every podcast posted in a forum? Especially one hour podcasts? Most of the time, I read the summaries provided. If the writer summarized the podcast poorly, shame on him. That's not my problem. I didn't misunderstand anything. I'll let others read the article and judge if I misunderstand his point.
No one asked you to listen or read anything. If you're not interested enough in the subject matter, then ignore it, that's perfectly ok. Just don't presume to tell us what it was about.
It's nonsensical for you to double down on this, no one was insulting your precious Trump. There was nothing to defend him against.
-
I understand how you feel. Thank you.
-
Please keep me out of your disagreements with management. Thanks.
-
Britain French friends block three month Brexit extension. No wonder why you want to get out.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-25/macron-blocked-eu-s-decision-to-delay-brexit-for-three-months
-
Caution, some indecorous language.
So sorry, Scotland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVy7faNKEtM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVy7faNKEtM).
-
Caution, some indecorous language.
So sorry, Scotland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVy7faNKEtM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVy7faNKEtM).
The funniest part was the piano lady, turning the music sheets, while all the time playing a simple, repetitive chord that a two-year old would remember :)
-
The funniest part was the piano lady, turning the music sheets, while all the time playing a simple, repetitive chord that a two-year old would remember :)
Everybody's a critic. :)
-
This short video demonstrates how easy it is for foreigners to steal jobs https://vimeo.com/169805138 (https://vimeo.com/169805138).
-
British humour. Meh.
-
Everybody's a critic. :)
About the song... just another high-pitch whining of losers. They should have asked Hillary to join ;)
-
British humour. Meh.
Not even. Actually, an insult to British humor. Just plain stupid.
-
Not even. Actually, an insult to British humor. Just plain stupid.
You slay me.
One word: decaf.
-
Not even. Actually, an insult to British humor. Just plain stupid.
I think you're right. That's what it was. Some British humor I enjoy. This was just stupid.
-
I think you're right. That's what it was. Some British humor I enjoy. This was just stupid.
It was. It's a shame; they can be really funny. See here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVASZ2lCY5Y).
Jeremy
-
It was. It's a shame; they can be really funny. See here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVASZ2lCY5Y).
Jeremy
Strange; I found the second link not worth the watching. On the other hand, I found the first song quite funny. But then my perspective doesn't come from Florida, does it?
:-)
Rob
-
Strange; I found the second link not worth the watching. On the other hand, I found the first song quite funny. But then my perspective doesn't come from Florida, does it?
Rob, my comments about the stupidity of the attempted humor refer to the link Robert provided about foreigners stealing jobs, not the Brexit song, which I think was quite well done, my disagreement with its premise notwithstanding.
P.S. I now see that Jeremy misunderstood my post as well :(
-
Rob, my comments about the stupidity of the attempted humor refer to the link Robert provided about foreigners stealing jobs, not the Brexit song, which I think was quite well done, my disagreement with its premise notwithstanding.
P.S. I now see that Jeremy misunderstood my post as well :(
As one could see me thinking Jeremy lives in Florida!
It's all a Google plot, I tell you!
:-)
-
Actually, there is no humour more delightful than Jewish humour.
As with photography and the art world, they have also cornered the humour market. Funny, though, most of it - apart from some models - doesn't originate from Israel.
There may be nothing funny about living in Israel, though. Not much funny I can remembet about living in Scotland, either, and Mallorca suddenly lost its charm on Wednesday, sailing off into the sunset with my watch in its pocket.
Maybe, in the beginning, there was nothing funny, so funny had to be plucked off the apple tree to make it all worth the experiment once sex proved to bring as much trouble as it did consolation.
Maybe, just maybe, that tree should have been limited to apples.
Rob
-
What's going to happen in GB during the three month extension granted by the EU commission? Did the EU blink?
-
There may be nothing funny about living in Israel, though. Not much funny I can remember about living in Scotland, either, and Mallorca suddenly lost its charm on Wednesday, sailing off into the sunset with my watch in its pocket.
Rob
The tougher the life in a certain country, the better the jokes. Many good jokes came from the old Soviet Union.
-
You have to laugh at yourself when things are the toughest. You can't take yourself seriously. Otherwise you might blow your brains out.
-
You have to laugh at yourself when things are the toughest. You can't take yourself seriously. Otherwise you might blow your brains out.
-
I think we beat this to death. I'm signing off to get on with life. Carry on. :)
-
I think we beat this to death. I'm signing off to get on with life. Carry on. :)
If you want to leave all you have to do is leave - no need to announce it to the world!
-
If you want to leave all you have to do is leave - no need to announce it to the world!
As if the world gave a shit!
;-)
-
It is Halloween here in the States, so...
-
I see The Trumpkin has been poking his nose into British politics in an interview with Farridge. I suppose he imagines he's helping his pal Boris, but I can't help thinking he's helping set up Labour's most convincing election argument - "Keep Trump's Little Hands Off Our NHS"
-
I see The Trumpkin has been poking his nose into British politics in an interview with Farridge. I suppose he imagines he's helping his pal Boris, but I can't help thinking he's helping set up Labour's most convincing election argument - "Keep Trump's Little Hands Off Our NHS"
Considering the distrust with which many Brits view Mr T, it is a little bit of a poisoned chalice to be lauded by that person pre elections.
I saw some polls on Sky News that indicated the age divide on Brexit is even more polarized than I had imagined, with those for whom the better part of life has long past being in favour of leaving the EU, while those younger, having more for which to dream and strive, more likely to wish to remain within the broader catchment area.
On balance, it makes me wonder if there really is any friendship between T and BoJo. Or, whether the former has no idea of (or interest in) his standing outwith the US Republican world.
And to think these guys are supposedly la crème de la crème of our respective countries.
Let's hope 2020 brings better. Yeah, fairies and like that.
;-(
-
And to think these guys are supposedly la crème de la crème of our respective countries.
Surely not.
-
https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/foreign-vc-investment-in-the-uk-since-the-brexit-referendum?fbclid=IwAR03JyOnmf6A8uEAAiDftBrzd8v4_RY0ILQKC6-WJ4aJ5iIvFEvIP6ENr7M
(Emphasis mine)
British entrepreneurs have defied the political and economic tensions over the past year, as the UK saw a record number of new startups in 2018. The country registered more than 663,000 new businesses last year, according to the Centre for Entrepreneurs, a 5.7% increase over 2017—and a portion will inevitably, at some point, be looking to the venture capital industry for funding.
The UK has long dominated Europe as the continent's leading nation for VC funding, and investment in the UK since the Brexit vote doesn't appear to have suffered. Last year, investors poured around €6.5 billion into UK-based startups across 1,423 deals, according to the PitchBook Platform, narrowly missing 2017's high of €6.7 billion in terms of capital invested. Not even a month in, 2019 has already seen more than 30 completed transactions worth upwards of €253 million.
-
No mention of the very high failure rates among starts.
I don't necessarily see investors in other people's businesses as angels, especially in today's climate, where I think such angels can easily use their funds against the relatively fundless people who ask for their help. Independence is very precious; vultures fly very high and are hard to spot.
Not only new businesses need to be aware; takeovers of big companies by bigger (or smaller, at times) often mean that some top brass in the acquired business is isolated to the point they can take no more of it, and are just driven to quit, breaking all connections with their babies.
Perhaps the only place people throw money at you for nothing is in a strip bar.
-
Yay!
Boris won and Labor lost 71 seats!
-
Yay!
Boris won and Labor lost 71 seats!
Although it would not be my choice, It is good to see this clear choice from the UK;
Now Boris can demonstrate what he is made off.
-
Apparently the British public did not feel that they were bamboozled with phoney facts before the original vote for Brexit. This landslide shows where their minds and hearts are at. For better or worse.
-
Well, a real problem. On the one hand, my nominally "old" party won, the crazed red devil was self-defeated, but my "old" party no longer exists.
Where to go from here? We have a radical right government and no credible Opposition whatsoever, not because there is no real opposition, but because it can't organized itself in a sensible and realistic manner.
I wait to see whether life continues normally for me as expat, or whether I have to buy that little boat and a large can of gasoline, and judge whether Viking heroics out in the bay become required action.
And some guys worry about mirrorless or not.
;-(
P.S.
Perhaps the answer lies in a red baseball cap. Americans seem to believe that in droves. Possibly more useful than snakeoil, though. But red ties don't cut it - so it can't just be colour - even for those who are colour blind.
-
Boris won and Labor lost 71 seats!
Only 59, in fact. With one still to declare. Some astonishing results.
Jeremy
-
Where to go from here?
Chris Grey's blog, as ever, shows what's likely. Grim reading it is too.
https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-brexit-dystopia-bequeathed-by-this.html
-
And the Brits didn't even need an electoral college to screw themselves.
-
Only 59, in fact. With one still to declare. Some astonishing results.
Jeremy
Do you think it was due to Corbyn being a poor party leader? Certainly he is/was not Tony Blair and maybe Labour needs to find someone in Blair's mold to take over the party leadership. It's interesting that the major metro areas went for Labour, kind of a mirror to what we have seen in the US. It looks like Scotland will hold another election on leaving and that will likely pass this time around. Don't know what this means for Northern Ireland.
-
It seems that slowly, painfully, the world is turning back toward sanity.
-
Do you think it was due to Corbyn being a poor party leader?
Yes, without doubt.
-
Perhaps the answer lies in a red baseball cap. Americans seem to believe that in droves.
Probably unwise to wear one in the streets of London. Or Edinburgh. Or Berlin, for that matter. Come to think of it, they're not very popular here in Washington.
-
1. Do you think it was due to Corbyn being a poor party leader? Certainly he is/was not Tony Blair and maybe Labour needs to find 2. someone in Blair's mold to take over the party leadership. It's interesting that the major metro areas went for Labour, kind of a mirror to what we have seen in the US. 3. It looks like Scotland will hold another election on leaving and that will likely pass this time around. 4. Don't know what this means for Northern Ireland.
1. A bad leader, certainly, but beyond all that, I think the party is redundant in today's Britain. The country, as with much of western Europe, has moved out of the dire straits of the immediate post-WW2 era. Of course there is lots of poverty, but it is fuelled by large numbers of no-hope people, whether from their own indolence or other external tragedies that might have befallen them. But such does not make a movement.
2. Really? I think Blair was the only labour leader for whom I might have voted, in extremis, but precisely because of his orientation within the left - eyes to the right and business, including his own, very much in mind - he became associated with the right in too many minds. In other words, he was too pragmatic for the faithfull sheep to follow. For a start, he was too obviously well-educated, which rendered him suspect from the start. Having had a good schooling is perfectly okay as long as you hide the fact, look like a scruff (as do I!) and drink lots of beer (which I do not). Medical reasons aside, I never liked beer, but ironically enough, I now find myself obliged to use it because as I cook but one sad meal a week at home, wine goes off in the fridge: one bottle, at a permitted glass per day, would last six weeks! I can buy vinegar more cheaply as it is.
3. I wouldn't bank on Scotland going independent. It's one thing to vote for ScotNat (sounds like a railroad company) MPs in order to be a constant, nagging thorn in the side of London which refuses to believe Britain ever even reached Hadrian's Wall, but quite another to vote to be left out in the cold with no army, navy or airforce, no currency and no way of paying for pensions or anything else other than by achieving what Corbyn failed to do: stealing everything from the rich, a neat short-term strategy, but when they have left... ?
4. If they have any sense, they will reunite and resolve the silly religious problems at a stroke. I doubt if many of those extremist have any religious convictions whatsoever. Mass murder would seem to have indicated otherwise.
-
Do you think it was due to Corbyn being a poor party leader? Certainly he is/was not Tony Blair and maybe Labour needs to find someone in Blair's mold to take over the party leadership. It's interesting that the major metro areas went for Labour, kind of a mirror to what we have seen in the US. It looks like Scotland will hold another election on leaving and that will likely pass this time around. Don't know what this means for Northern Ireland.
Corbyn was an absolute disaster as a party leader. There's no question that he's an anti-Semite, and I think a great many people in Britain simply couldn't stomach that. Further, he is hard left, and the fact is, socialism has a rather poor record every place it's been tried, and has on a number of occasions led to mass murder. People point to the Scandinavian countries as examples where socialism has worked well, but in fact, none of the Scandinavian countries is socialist, and all of them have several billionaires among them, which is pretty amazing for countries with such small populations. (If the Scandinavian counties had to be placed in some kind of political box, I think they'd be best seen as a species of elective-fascism of the kind the more radical fascist states like Italy and Spain were unable to achieve. But that's another story.) In any case, I think a pragmatic Blair-ite style of Labour Party could yet come back, if it took the form that the old pragmatic Bill Clinton-style American Democratic Party took. I think one thing Corbyn did was make the mistake that Trump and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have made, which is thinking that people want to fight, that some kind of bloody victory is necessary, but the victory they're looking for is over their own countrymen. As people wake up to that, I think they will become disregarded and even despised.
I disagree a bit with Rob's view on Scotland. I think a lot of Scots would take separation as a bitter pill, but many of them remember a time when Scotland was a poor place, disregarded in London and pretty much left on its own. It's the EU connection that's made Scotland the prosperous place that it is, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Scots made a very pragmatic leap and decided to separate, to adopt the Euro, and become a solid European nation. In a way, it might even become Britain's back door to Europe.
One thing that I think a great many pro-Brexit Brits mistakenly believe is that it's possible for the county to go it alone. It can't. The whole world now depends on fast access to large markets, and Britain is about to cut itself off from one of the the great markets of the world. (The others are the US with associated free-trade counties like Canada and Mexico, China and India.) China and the US are now becoming bound together to great mutual profit and I believe that will stick. It's not that other people will hate Britain, it's just that as a small nation among very large market conglomerations, it'll simply be easy to ignore. For these first time in centuries, Britain is about to become an after-thought. IMHO.
-
And the Brits didn't even need an electoral college to screw themselves.
No, we have the antiquated 'first past the post' system where a smaller porportion of votes gets a larger proportion of seats in parliament. How can that be right ?
-
I think one thing Corbyn did was make the mistake .... which is thinking that people want to fight, that some kind of bloody victory is necessary
Not at all. His failing were his past history, a terrible lack of personal charisma and no hint of statesmanship.
The basic ideas would have had a much wider appeal if they had been presented well.
I disagree a bit with Rob's view on Scotland.
No, Rob's on the mark. Particularly with respect to how future financial liabilities could be financed.
One thing that I think a great many pro-Brexit Brits mistakenly believe is that it's possible for the county to go it alone. It can't. The whole world now depends on fast access to large markets, and Britain is about to cut itself off from one of the the great markets of the world....... It's not that other people will hate Britain, it's just that as a small nation among very large market conglomerations, it'll simply be easy to ignore. For these first time in centuries, Britain is about to become an after-thought. IMHO.
That's what worries all of us that oppose brexit.
-
as I cook but one sad meal a week at home, wine goes off in the fridge: one bottle, at a permitted glass per day, would last six weeks! I can buy vinegar more cheaply as it is.
Coravin Wine System. It actually works.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-way-to-preserve-half-drunk-bottles-of-wine-1452540794
-
Gwynne Dyer's view: http://gwynnedyer.com/2019/a-european-germany-not-a-german-europe/ (http://gwynnedyer.com/2019/a-european-germany-not-a-german-europe/).
-
Coravin Wine System. It actually works.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-way-to-preserve-half-drunk-bottles-of-wine-1452540794
We have one as well - I concur.
-
Gwynne Dyer's view: http://gwynnedyer.com/2019/a-european-germany-not-a-german-europe/ (http://gwynnedyer.com/2019/a-european-germany-not-a-german-europe/).
The last two paragraphs nail it, except the majority of people in the UK don't want brexit :-(
-
We have one as well - I concur.
I can make a huge sacrifice and stick with an anodyne can of beer!
Anything else, and I would probably contrive to blow myself up, or poison myself instead.
;-)
-
Poor Jeremy Corbyn. Everyone is blaming the poor chap for failing to polish the turd ;)
-
Poor Jeremy Corbyn. Everyone is blaming the poor chap for failing to polish the turd ;)
Were you suggesting masturbation as technique or even therapy?
Rob
-
Brexit, schmexit.
While four major camera manufacturers are canceling their plans for Photokina in Cologne, Germany, they will be attending a U.K. show next year.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/another-one-bites-the-dust-fujifilm-pulls-out-of-photokina-2020?utm_content=buffercac3e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer_dcwfb
-
Brexit, schmexit.
While four major camera manufacturers are canceling their plans for Photokina in Cologne, Germany, they will be attending a U.K. show next year.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/another-one-bites-the-dust-fujifilm-pulls-out-of-photokina-2020?utm_content=buffercac3e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer_dcwfb
Simply proving that if you quote cheaply enough...
I remember one year driving southwards back home to Spain, that we found ourselves parked, engine off, on the fast lane of the motorway there. Just the climate for a show and for preparing the punter to feel like buying!
Perhaps Germans being richer, they have already bought all the Leicas etc. that they need (I almost wrote want, but stopped myself just in time!).
;-)
-
So now Poland may have to leave the EU. Why would Poles want to turn over their judiciary to EU gnomes?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50828516
-
And Britain starts to take back their judiciary from the EU gnomes.
https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiLWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy91ay1wb2xpdGljcy01MDg0MDU5NdIBMWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvdWstcG9saXRpY3MtNTA4NDA1OTU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
-
So now Poland may have to leave the EU. Why would Poles want to turn over their judiciary to EU gnomes?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50828516
Careful Alan, or Slobodan will report you to the Moderator for not summarizing the linked article.
-
When govt. starts to control the judiciary you should book your ticket and flee.
There could be no better, final way to rubber-stamp any dictatorship than by it buying the judges.
Guard the impartiality and concentration upon law (and the validity of new ones) in your Supreme Courts! It's your final guarantee of some freedoms. Muzzle those guys and gals and you have lost the battle for freeedom, and it sure is a battle.
Keep the eye upon our Boris (doesn't that sound a bitty soviet somehow? More so than Jeremy and Corbyn do?); no sooner does he win his election than he starts to alter the Brexit Deal parameters yet again. Now, there's this new attempt to crush the trade negotiations we have to do into a year. I suspect he knows perfectly well that can't be achieved properly, and so he will be able to rise from the table in fully puffed up shirt and leave, doing what that handful of nutters in the extreme inner circle of the Tory party wanted all along: exit with no deal whatsoever.
After he won that election the pound shot up; immediately he started to talk about his proposed new law, it plummeted again. So much for hoping to have a better pension payment this month. Bastard.
As I wrote before, he got turkeys to vote for Christmas, but beware when the results eventually come home to roost in the closing car factories, and those well-cooked turkeys suddenly find themselves truly stuffed - and on the dole.
Rob
-
Careful Alan, or Slobodan will report you to the Moderator for not summarizing the linked article.
I did sum it up. It's about the Poles leaving the EU because their judiciary will refuse to follow the legal mandates of the EU. Why would the people of any country want foreigners to decide what laws they have to live under?
-
I did sum it up. It's about the Poles leaving the EU because their judiciary will refuse to follow the legal mandates of the EU. Why would the people of any country want foreigners to decide what laws they have to live under?
I am sure all states in the US have to follow some basic legal mandates... Like freedom of speech to name one.
-
I did sum it up. It's about the Poles leaving the EU because their judiciary will refuse to follow the legal mandates of the EU.
No. The EC refered Poland to the ECJ to protect judges from political control
On 3 April 2019, the Commission launched this infringement procedure on the grounds that the new disciplinary regime undermines the judicial independence of Polish judges and does not ensure the necessary guarantees to protect judges from political control, as required by the Court of Justice of the EU.
Specifically, the Polish law allows ordinary court judges to be subjected to disciplinary investigations, procedures and sanctions on the basis of the content of their judicial decisions, [...] Moreover, the new disciplinary regime does not guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, which is composed solely of judges selected by the National Council for the Judiciary, which is itself politically appointed by the Polish Parliament (Sejm).
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_6033
-
I am sure all states in the US have to follow some basic legal mandates... Like freedom of speech to name one.
Are you seriously comparing a proper federation like the US with a mishmash of wildly different countries that the EU is!?
-
No. The EC refered Poland to the ECJ to protect judges from political control
Indeed. It apparently is difficult for some in the USA to realise that the "separation of powers" doctrine is a product of "the Enlightenment", and not an invention by the Founding Fathers of the United States.
"The Enlightenment" was a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It was heavily influenced by 17th-century philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Newton, and its prominent figures included Kant, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith.
"Separation of powers" is a doctrine of constitutional law under which the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate. This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches
That's why the separation of powers is such a fundamental part of the European way of organizing society. The Polish government is trying to replace the impartial Judicial by a State-controlled farce. It's hard to imagine why someone from the USA would not see how wrong that is, unless they don't like the USA constitution.
-
... It's hard to imagine why someone from the USA would not see how wrong that is...
Perhaps because manny judges are politically appointed, all the way up to the SCOTUS.
-
No. The EC refered Poland to the ECJ to protect judges from political control
Even if so, and even if it is perhaps wrong, why wouldn’t Poland, or any other country, have any political and judicial system they want?
-
Even if so, and even if it is perhaps wrong, why wouldn’t Poland ... have any political and judicial system they want?
Define 'they'. (Hint: Lech Walesa might mean something to you)
-
Perhaps because manny judges are politically appointed, all the way up to the SCOTUS.
In her valedictory remarks, Lady Hale, who delivered the explosive verdict of the Supreme Court that Mr Johnson's suspension of parliament was unlawful, said: “Judges have not been appointed for party political reasons in this country since at least the Second World War.
“We do not want to turn into the Supreme Court of the United States, whether in powers, or in process of appointments.”
Stressing the apolitical nature of the court, she continued: “We [Supreme Court justices] do not know one another’s political opinions, although occasionally we may have a good guess and long may that remain so.”
As it stands, judges on the UK’s highest court are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister, who is legally obliged to the decision made by senior judges.
--
In the immediate aftermath of the unanimous Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation of parliament, the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, said there could be time for “parliamentary scrutiny” of judicial appointments. Just days later he was forced to say the government had no “current plans” to do so, and insisted US-style hearings “would be a regrettable step for us in our constitutional arrangements”.
-
The fruit of Brexit according to a leading Scots newspaper, the Herald:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/18113651.ian-mcconnell-scottish-electorate-sees-economic-truth-eludes-johnson-voters-amid-wilful-damage-brexit/?ref=eb
-
Perhaps because manny judges are politically appointed, all the way up to the SCOTUS.
A bit naked, isn't it? On the other hand, makes it transparent.
;-)
-
Even if so, and even if it is perhaps wrong, why wouldn’t Poland, or any other country, have any political and judicial system they want?
Who is Poland in this case? The politcians?
So you prefer a system like in China and Russia to name a few, where all cards are in one hand and opposition is hindered or even becomes illegal.
Turkey is on that road and so is Poland. The US also makes steps in that direction where Trump appoints yah sayers like Barr and replaces or condemns indepenent thinkers like Mueller that are not doing what he personaly likes.
-
Who is Poland in this case? The politcians?
Of course Polish politicians. Who else? European politicians?
-
"Separation of powers" is a doctrine of constitutional law under which the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate. This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches
And it doesn't exist in many European countries. It certainly doesn't exist in the UK, despite Blair's unnecessary transformation of the judicial committee of the House of Lords into the Supreme Court while casually ignoring the fact that the executive continues to be part of the legislature.
It's a nice idea, but there's nothing to suggest that it is needed.
Jeremy
-
I am sure all states in the US have to follow some basic legal mandates... Like freedom of speech to name one.
America is a country. We're all Americans regardless of what state we live in. So we harne a common constitution. There is no country called Europe. Germans care little about Brits who care little about the French. The problem with the EU is they've gone beyond a trade confederation and have become a supra government where foreigners tell other foreigners how to live politically and socially. That's why Brexit happened and why the EU will break up eventually. Poland is just another sign of that.
-
America is a country. We're all Americans regardless of what state we live in. So we harne a common constitution. There is no country called Europe. Germans care little about Brits who care little about the French. The problem with the EU is they've gone beyond a trade confederation and have become a supra government where foreigners tell other foreigners how to live politically and socially. That's why Brexit happened and why the EU will break up eventually. Poland is just another sign of that.
Here are the rules for nations being part of the EU... https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en
In the EU there are many different opinions but there are also these common values that every Nation should repect and they have signed to do so.
I do not share your view on why Brexit happened nor your view on the supra government.
BTW At the moment it is the US that dares to interfere with sanctions about the way we want to import our energy from Russia... now that is really something...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50879435
Can you imagine if we were still small separate countries... like Brittain... I am not so sure about their fantastic trade deal with the US.
-
Here are the rules for nations being part of the EU... https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en
In the EU there are many different opinions but there are also these common values that every Nation should repect and they have signed to do so.
I do not share your view on why Brexit happened nor your view on the supra government.
BTW At the moment it is the US that dares to interfere with sanctions about the way we want to import our energy from Russia... now that is really something...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50879435
Can you imagine if we were still small separate countries... like Brittain... I am not so sure about their fantastic trade deal with the US.
I didn't say they shouldn't have a trade compact. I said that they shouldn't interfere with each other's political and personal laws. That should be left up to each individual Nations Democratic decisions on how they should rule themselves.
-
Here are the rules for nations being part of the EU... https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en
In the EU there are many different opinions but there are also these common values that every Nation should repect and they have signed to do so.
I do not share your view on why Brexit happened nor your view on the supra government.
BTW At the moment it is the US that dares to interfere with sanctions about the way we want to import our energy from Russia... now that is really something...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50879435
Can you imagine if we were still small separate countries... like Brittain... I am not so sure about their fantastic trade deal with the US.
Regarding gas you should be allowed to import your energy from Russia and we should pull our divisions out of Germany and let you deal with the Bear on your own.
-
Regarding gas you should be allowed to import your energy from Russia and we should pull our divisions out of Germany and let you deal with the Bear on your own.
How about NHL using German hockey players?
EDIT:
Or God forbid, the Russian players?
-
How about NHL using German hockey players?
EDIT:
Or God forbid, the Russian players?
I don't follow hockey although I always liked the Montreal Canadiens. So I don't understand your point. Could you clarify?
-
Speaking of Germany:
-
Speaking of Germany:
Regarding the snap of Angie: surley, with the UK outta there, domination of Europe could be more easy? But hasn't that battle already been won in the factories?
Brits will always desire their BMWs, their Mercedes and their Porsches. For as long as they can continue to afford them, it will ever be so. Much like in the States, then. So the deficit will probably have the same complexion going forward, as modern people like to phrase it.
Rob
-
Regarding gas you should be allowed to import your energy from Russia and we should pull our divisions out of Germany and let you deal with the Bear on your own.
It will be US gas in of course... The US just want us to use their gas- nothing mystic about that.
-
I don't follow hockey although I always liked the Montreal Canadiens. So I don't understand your point. Could you clarify?
My point was that the Northamerican NHL depends on the few selected German players as much as Germany depends on Russian gas.
-
Regarding the snap of Angie: surley, with the UK outta there, domination of Europe could be more easy? But hasn't that battle already been won in the factories?
Brits will always desire their BMWs, their Mercedes and their Porsches. For as long as they can continue to afford them, it will ever be so. Much like in the States, then. So the deficit will probably have the same complexion going forward, as modern people like to phrase it.
Rob
Coincidentally, in the latest issue of German Spiegel, there were three articles describing the impending end of their 15-year long golden economic period.
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/abschwung-und-handelskrieg-dem-deutschen-wirtschaftsmodell-droht-das-ende-a-1246578.html
-
Coincidentally, in the latest issue of German Spiegel, there were three articles describing the impending end of their 15-year long golden economic period.
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/abschwung-und-handelskrieg-dem-deutschen-wirtschaftsmodell-droht-das-ende-a-1246578.html
I wonder if letting in a million immigrants had anything to do with it? Certainly had a lot to do with the rise of the new right, as with in much of Europe. And to think it didn't have to happen.
The irony of it being Britain that's pulling out is remarkable; its people problems are quite different, closer, I'd guess, to those of France.
Rob
-
It will be US gas in of course... The US just want us to use their gas- nothing mystic about that.
Well, American gas is better than Russian gas. 😏
-
I wonder if letting in a million immigrants had anything to do with it? Certainly had a lot to do with the rise of the new right, as with in much of Europe. And to think it didn't have to happen.
The irony of it being Britain that's pulling out is remarkable; its people problems are quite different, closer, I'd guess, to those of France.
Rob
(https://wenr.wes.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Berlin_iStock-1156518926_EDITORIAL-USE-ONLY-740x440-2.png)
The combined number of admitted refugees in Germany since 2015 is almost 1.5 millions. The associated costs were and remain staggering.
The public sector costs resulting from this inflow remain high. Federal expenditures allotted to asylum seekers stood at €20.8 billion (USD$23.6 billion) in 2018, or a little more than 6 percent of the entire federal budget. That’s a slight decrease from €21.2 billion in 2017, but more than in 2016, when the government spent €20.5 billion.
https://wenr.wes.org/2019/08/the-state-of-refugee-integration-in-germany-in-2019
-
So now Spain wants to join Poland and do a Brexit too.
They've had it with Brussel gnomes overreach as well. This is all going to be good for American trade negotiations.
Brussels chaos: Spain follows Poland in shock threat to quit EU 'No more humiliation!'
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1220232/Brussels-chaos-Spain-Poland-EU-Brexit-Spaxit-Vox-ECJ-latest-news
-
your bold characters explain it: 'BREAKING NEWS!"
-
Brits are soooo done with Brussels ;D ;D ;D
-
Brits are soooo done with Brussels ;D ;D ;D
Wait until they catch up on the Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée kick: the Wars of the Roses will become a footnote in history, and the cheese problem but a burp; sprouts will really turn up the gas.
As for regional accents: brother, you ain't heard nothin' yet!
Rob
-
So now Spain wants to join Poland and do a Brexit too.
They've had it with Brussel gnomes overreach as well. This is all going to be good for American trade negotiations.
Brussels chaos: Spain follows Poland in shock threat to quit EU 'No more humiliation!'
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1220232/Brussels-chaos-Spain-Poland-EU-Brexit-Spaxit-Vox-ECJ-latest-news
Alan, I suggest you be wary in the extreme of news obtained from the Daily Express.
Jeremy
-
Alan, I suggest you be wary in the extreme of news obtained from the Daily Express.
Jeremy
Fair enough. I'm not familiar with the bias over there. May I suggest Europeans be wary of the extreme news obtained from the NY Times and Washington Post, as well as their outlets and bylines that many papers around the world use. Their news is very lopsided as well. Actually, Reuters seems to be generally fairer and more journalism driven. Bart keyed me into them and I found he was mainly right.
-
Just as one might have thought that Brexit had been brushed under the carpet until such time as reasoned (!) negotiations, face-to-face, could resume, we get this:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/18460885.ian-mcconnell-bad-economic-omens-michael-gove-philosophy-european-union-priti-patel-immigration-outlook/
The idiots are not just running Corrie-19!
-
Yes, all complete and utter madness.
If you want to understand what's driving this lunacy the best blog to follow is Chris Grey's https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/ a reasoned and knowledgeable weekly update of what's happening (or not) from someone who knows what they're talking about.
-
Yes, all complete and utter madness.
If you want to understand what's driving this lunacy the best blog to follow is Chris Grey's https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/ a reasoned and knowledgeable weekly update of what's happening (or not) from someone who knows what they're talking about.
Thank you for the link: since finding it, my iPad battery has run down to 34%!
How sad that the very people across Britain who need to read this blog will never, ever, do that. A very prescient point was made: when the bell rings and Britain is out of the club car park, then that's the time when all the difficulties that will inevitably hit Brits both at home and abroad will become blamed not upon the madness, the suicidal tendencies of the Brexiters, but upon Corinne-19.
People will have died for a wonderful cause: getting Boris and his chums off their own hook.
-
Thank you for the link: since finding it, my iPad battery has run down to 34%!
How sad that the very people across Britain who need to read this blog will never, ever, do that. A very prescient point was made: when the bell rings and Britain is out of the club car park, then that's the time when all the difficulties that will inevitably hit Brits both at home and abroad will become blamed not upon the madness, the suicidal tendencies of the Brexiters, but upon Corinne-19.
People will have died for a wonderful cause: getting Boris and his chums off their own hook.
What I found particularly interesting in the blog was the idea that the brexiteers ignored geography, economics and history in preference to the concept that the British character would see them through the separation from the EU. Before World War I, the French army promoted the concept of "Elan Vital," which argued that the character, or the spirit, of the individual soldier was more important than any weaponry. I find those two ideas quite similar, basically arguing that character trumps any other consideration. The French, of course, found that Elan Vital only went so far in the face of German heavy machine guns and artillery. I suspect that British character will only go so far in the face of isolation from their natural market place, at a time when the rest of the world is moving to tighter regional integration, rather than isolation. There may be occasional exceptions created by temporary nationalist impulses, but I suspect those impulses will fade away or be torn away when the advantages of integration become more obvious -- if the UK sinks slowly into a long-term, grinding recession, as I think likely, while the EU continues to prosper, then other nations (like Poland) may come to look upon the UK as a good example of a really bad impulse.
-
What I found particularly interesting in the blog was the idea that the brexiteers ignored geography, economics and history in preference to the concept that the British character would see them through the separation from the EU. Before World War I, the French army promoted the concept of "Elan Vital," which argued that the character, or the spirit, of the individual soldier was more important than any weaponry. I find those two ideas quite similar, basically arguing that character trumps any other consideration. The French, of course, found that Elan Vital only went so far in the face of German heavy machine guns and artillery. I suspect that British character will only go so far in the face of isolation from their natural market place, at a time when the rest of the world is moving to tighter regional integration, rather than isolation. There may be occasional exceptions created by temporary nationalist impulses, but I suspect those impulses will fade away or be torn away when the advantages of integration become more obvious -- if the UK sinks slowly into a long-term, grinding recession, as I think likely, while the EU continues to prosper, then other nations (like Poland) may come to look upon the UK as a good example of a really bad impulse.
There is really a massive flaw in that assumption about character: there is no such thing as national character, only of national indoctrination formats. I believe these to be skin-deep at best, and that when faced with reality rather than imaginary scenarios that call upon bluster and assumed machismo etc, people start to think for themselves. Which is pretty much what you have said here: "those impulses will fade away or be torn away when the advantages of integration become more obvious -- if the UK sinks slowly into a long-term, grinding recession," but sadly, short of a miracle, it will be too late. Also, with the rise of nationalism recently in several EEC states, it might well see the beginning of a wider unrest as more politicians see advantageous platforms for themselves in stirring up such nationalistic fervour as they exhort their own to follow the British example.
I also think that Europe falls victim to its own rules at times: regarding the closing of national borders which, depending on the state of infection in the individual countries makes perfect sense, both to contain what's already within as to keep out what may be worse outside - it's already prompted voices to say that that flies in the face of the open border principle of European integration, which is a nonsense: closing local borders for health reasons is not at all tantamount to reclosing them for political reasons, but the impression given is that some Eurocrats think politics trumps health. Looked at sideways, it's the same internal argument that has raged across America, Brazil as in many other countries: forget isolation - keep the economy going at all costs. And hey, there is little space between Trump and Bolsonaro when both pretend the pandemic is something that's been highly overrated, and both extol the virtues of hydroxychloroquine, a drug that's repeatedly been declared unsuited to the purpose. And guess what: they are now officially talking about testing it out on NHS staff in Britain! Is that a sop of solidarity towards Trump and South America as the electronic Brexit "negotiations" appear to be heading straight for the rocks?
I sometimes think that this modern world of instant communication/information/misinformation has brought more harm to us than good. Perhaps if they had all been left out of the constant media spotlight, rather than the crap we have to deal with now, politicos and doctors and researchers would have got on with the real job rather than waste time, effort, resources and national patience and create anxiety with the need for constant updates even when there are none to give. It can't create a good, productive working environment when progress becomes a race for publicity instead.
-
I sometimes think that this modern world of instant communication/information/misinformation has brought more harm to us than good.
A too much of an all encompassing statement really.
The real problem is admitted here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52750162 "He admitted that the firm was "behind" in the 2016 US presidential election."
The reality is that brexit was the dry run for trump's election. Some well funded people managed to use the massive power of 'Big Data'. Instead of just using it to advertise products to sell, they used the same insidious tech to indoctrinate huge masses of carefully targeted population and they're still topping up the prejudice.
-
What I found particularly interesting in the blog was the idea that the brexiteers ignored geography, economics and history in preference to the concept that the British character would see them through the separation from the EU. Before World War I, the French army promoted the concept of "Elan Vital," which argued that the character, or the spirit, of the individual soldier was more important than any weaponry. I find those two ideas quite similar, basically arguing that character trumps any other consideration. The French, of course, found that Elan Vital only went so far in the face of German heavy machine guns and artillery. I suspect that British character will only go so far in the face of isolation from their natural market place, at a time when the rest of the world is moving to tighter regional integration, rather than isolation. There may be occasional exceptions created by temporary nationalist impulses, but I suspect those impulses will fade away or be torn away when the advantages of integration become more obvious -- if the UK sinks slowly into a long-term, grinding recession, as I think likely, while the EU continues to prosper, then other nations (like Poland) may come to look upon the UK as a good example of a really bad impulse.
Frenchmen aren't Germans aren't British aren't Italians aren't etc. The idea that these peoples, who tried to kill each other twice during the last century and many times before, would suddenly become buddy-buddy, flies in the biologically history of territorial man. Trade and military alliances aside, expecting political integration of peoples with differing characteristics, languages, traditions, culture, territory, history, etc. is a bridge too far.
-
Frenchmen aren't Germans aren't British aren't Italians aren't etc. The idea that these peoples, who tried to kill each other twice during the last century and many times before, would suddenly become buddy-buddy, flies in the biologically history of territorial man. Trade and military alliances aside, expecting political integration of peoples with differing characteristics, languages, traditions, culture, territory, history, etc. is a bridge too far.
There hasn't been a war in those places since 1945, and my guess is that the people living there kind of like it that way. Are you saying their genes will wake up soon and they'll start shooting each other?
Where did you dig up the term "political integration?" Are you worried about one-world government much?
Stop watching Hollywood WWII films.
-
There hasn't been a war in those places since 1945, and my guess is that the people living there kind of like it that way. Are you saying their genes will wake up soon and they'll start shooting each other?
Where did you dig up the term "political integration?" Are you worried about one-world government much?
Stop watching Hollywood WWII films.
Man is a territorial animal, not much different than a pride of lions. They will defend their territories. So do we. It's ingrained in our genes. When push comes to shove, all niceties are thrown away and people defend themselves as a family, group, tribe, or nation. This is why you see this throughout the world and throughout history. You can suppress it only on the surface. But when things get tough, peoples' DNA come out and it becomes adversarial. It's been the reason that war had become one of the great entertainments of human activity.
There are great advantages to territorialism. It's why it's such a common feature in so many species. It allows members to group together to protect and gain resources that would be unattainable singly. It protects from others trying to take it away from the group. Unfortunately with creative man, the weapons used in territorial defense have become terribly violent and dangerous for human survival. Yet the defensive actions built into our genes are still paramount, an explosive situation, one that requires careful control. But trying to do away with our genetic makeup won't work. I think the EU was an attempt to do this that went too far. Trade, common reserve currency is one thing. But getting involved into single political decision making that affect one country over another stimulates the territorial DNA. People revolt. It's why nationalism is gaining more adherents. The EU would be better off just keeping the organization on a commercial, non-political basis if it wants it to survive.
-
Man is a territorial animal, not much different than a pride of lions. They will defend their territories. So do we. It's ingrained in our genes. When push comes to shove, all niceties are thrown away and people defend themselves as a family, group, tribe, or nation. This is why you see this throughout the world and throughout history. You can suppress it only on the surface. But when things get tough, peoples' DNA come out and it becomes adversarial. It's been the reason that war had become one of the great entertainments of human activity.
There are great advantages to territorialism. It's why it's such a common feature in so many species. It allows members to group together to protect and gain resources that would be unattainable singly. It protects from others trying to take it away from the group. Unfortunately with creative man, the weapons used in territorial defense have become terribly violent and dangerous for human survival. Yet the defensive actions built into our genes are still paramount, an explosive situation, one that requires careful control. But trying to do away with our genetic makeup won't work. I think the EU was an attempt to do this that went too far. Trade, common reserve currency is one thing. But getting involved into single political decision making that affect one country over another stimulates the territorial DNA. People revolt. It's why nationalism is gaining more adherents. The EU would be better off just keeping the organization on a commercial, non-political basis if it wants it to survive.
You lost me, I have no idea what you're talking about.
-
You lost me, I have no idea what you're talking about.
People are patriotic. The EU will continue to disintegrate because of it.
-
People are patriotic. The EU will continue to disintegrate because of it.
I would not call the loss of the UK desintegration. Member-states have the 'freedom' not to take part.
It is different with the states in the US. I cannot imagine Hawaii having the choice to go independent from the rest of the US.
-
I cannot imagine Hawaii having the choice to go independent from the rest of the US.
That's been tried. It didn't go too well.
-
Well, then , imagine Texas.
-
And consider poor old Hong Kong from today!
-
You lost me, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Just ignore the troll
-
I would not call the loss of the UK desintegration. Member-states have the 'freedom' not to take part.
It is different with the states in the US. I cannot imagine Hawaii having the choice to go independent from the rest of the US.
The UK is the first. Other nations will follow unless the EU changes.
When US territories become a state, they are to be part of the American nation and agree not to break off. But to compare Hawaii Texas or any of American State to Germany and France, let's say, is not the same. Americans are American whether they're from Texas, Hawaii or any other state. Germans are not Frenchmen. Neither wants the other to tell them how to, live politically. Each defends there own borders and want their own politicians running things not some gnome in Brussels. Why do they put up with it? There are more important things than money, self-rule being one of them.
-
The UK is the first. Other nations will follow unless the EU changes.
When US territories become a state, they are to be part of the American nation and agree not to break off. But to compare Hawaii Texas or any of American State to Germany and France, let's say, is not the same. Americans are American whether they're from Texas, Hawaii or any other state. Germans are not Frenchmen. Neither wants the other to tell them how to, live politically. Each defends there own borders and want their own politicians running things not some gnome in Brussels. Why do they put up with it? There are more important things than money, self-rule being one of them.
It seems to me there are at least already two nations in the US; democrates and republicans. And there is a common disbelieve in facts and institutions.
Demonstrators look like armed soldiers demanding a kind of freedom that looks more like anarchy than any faith in the constitution and the democratically chosen government.
Their fate in the constitution only covers the part were everybody is permitted a gun.
-
It seems to me there are at least already two nations in the US; democrates and republicans. And there is a common disbelieve in facts and institutions.
Demonstrators look like armed soldiers demanding a kind of freedom that looks more like anarchy than any faith in the constitution and the democratically chosen government.
Their fate in the constitution only covers the part were everybody is permitted a gun.
Democrat and Republican are two parties in the US just like you have political parties in The Netherlands. Demonstrators are carrying out their Constitutional rights to protest and of free speech. The Constitution allows free assembly to make your political views known. It also allows the right to bear arms which is publicly allowed under the laws of their state. It's not anarchy despite what you think. They're not rioting, shooting, or violating local laws or ordinances or the constitution of their state or the US Constitution. You just don't understand America or how America works. Americans are mainly anti government. At least until it comes to getting free stuff from the government. Then they're like the socialists in Europe and just as greedy. Rich or poor they've got their hands out for government giveaways. :)
-
Democrat and Republican are two parties in the US just like you have political parties in The Netherlands. Demonstrators are carrying out their Constitutional rights to protest and of free speech. The Constitution allows free assembly to make your political views known. It also allows the right to bear arms which is publicly allowed under the laws of their state. It's not anarchy despite what you think. They're not rioting, shooting, or violating local laws or ordinances or the constitution of their state or the US Constitution. You just don't understand America or how America works. Americans are mainly anti government. At least until it comes to getting free stuff from the government. Then they're like the socialists in Europe and just as greedy. Rich or poor they've got their hands out for government giveaways. :)
C'mon, Alan, but this is simply horseshit. Those people with guns aren't at political rallies to demonstrate their right to bear arms; they're there to intimidate, pure and simple. We have a New Mexico politican/religious freak (Otero County Commissioner, gun guy and Cowboys for Trump founder Cory Griffin) who recently made a speech that said he's come around to the view that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat. And he carries a gun. And he goes to campaign meetings. How are you supposed to be a Democrat and interpret a loaded AR15 in the hands of somebody like that? And I'm an American and an Army veteran and frankly, after a lot of years of covering politics from city halls to four national conventions, as well as cops and school board, I think I know how America works as well as you do. You really think somebody needs a gun to protest and have freedom of speech? It's obvious how stupid this thought is, when you actually look at the people who do this, a bunch of overweight clowns in camo who have this hero fantasy going on. I mean, Jesus, it gives me a headache just to think about.
-
C'mon, Alan, but this is simply horseshit. Those people with guns aren't at political rallies to demonstrate their right to bear arms; they're there to intimidate, pure and simple. We have a New Mexico politican/religious freak (Otero County Commissioner, gun guy and Cowboys for Trump founder Cory Griffin) who recently made a speech that said he's come around to the view that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat. And he carries a gun. And he goes to campaign meetings. How are you supposed to be a Democrat and interpret a loaded AR15 in the hands of somebody like that? And I'm an American and an Army veteran and frankly, after a lot of years of covering politics from city halls to four national conventions, as well as cops and school board, I think I know how America works as well as you do. You really think somebody needs a gun to protest and have freedom of speech? It's obvious how stupid this thought is, when you actually look at the people who do this, a bunch of overweight clowns in camo who have this hero fantasy going on. I mean, Jesus, it gives me a headache just to think about.
Which is exactly why they are so dangerous, and despite the arch-Republican's trolling, this is about Brexit, not gun-crazies in wildest straw-out-of-ears American states. We have enough nutters in the UK, too. Fortunately, most of them aren't armed and only have their bigotry to help them through the daily fights. Yet - look at the damage that a couple of percentage points can inflict across the nation when it comes down to votes.
-
The UK is the first. Other nations will follow unless the EU changes.
What in the EU has to change, in your opinion?
-
C'mon, Alan, but this is simply horseshit. Those people with guns aren't at political rallies to demonstrate their right to bear arms; they're there to intimidate, pure and simple. We have a New Mexico politican/religious freak (Otero County Commissioner, gun guy and Cowboys for Trump founder Cory Griffin) who recently made a speech that said he's come around to the view that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat. And he carries a gun. And he goes to campaign meetings. How are you supposed to be a Democrat and interpret a loaded AR15 in the hands of somebody like that? And I'm an American and an Army veteran and frankly, after a lot of years of covering politics from city halls to four national conventions, as well as cops and school board, I think I know how America works as well as you do. You really think somebody needs a gun to protest and have freedom of speech? It's obvious how stupid this thought is, when you actually look at the people who do this, a bunch of overweight clowns in camo who have this hero fantasy going on. I mean, Jesus, it gives me a headache just to think about.
It's not something that I would do nor are these the kind of people I would hang out with. I don't even own a gun. But people march for all sorts of reasons in America. It's called freedom. As long as they do it constitutionally and legally for their locality, it's not my business.
Also, each state handles guns differently. If you don't like people walking around with guns, move out of New Mexico, part of cowboy country. There are 50 states. Come here to New Jersey. You don't have that kind of stuff going on here. Here the politicians lock you up in your home forever and dare you to show your guns.
Which state is better? Whose practices are more compatible with liberty? America is a big place that has different styles and customs depending where you live.
-
What in the EU has to change, in your opinion?
Keep the EU for commercial applications, trade, etc. Sort of like America, Canada, and Mexico's NAFTA now called USMCA. But don't allow it to be involved with how the countries run politically. Leave each country to decide on those things democratically with their own representatives in their own country, not from Brussels. Trying to be the United States of Europe won't work when each nation has their own identity, language, customs, history, patriotic impulses, etc.
-
Keep the EU for commercial applications, trade, etc. Sort of like America, Canada, and Mexico's NAFTA now called USMCA. But don't allow it to be involved with how the countries run politically. Leave each country to decide on those things democratically with their own representatives in their own country, not from Brussels. Trying to be the United States of Europe won't work when each nation has their own identity, language, customs, history, patriotic impulses, etc.
What examples of political meddling can you give?
There were many areas of the NAFTA agreement where a company could sue the government of another country, but I have forgotten the exact circumstances under which this could happen. My guess is that it has to do with restraint of trade. My memory is hazy on this, but I seem to recall US companies sueing (or threatening to sue) either the federal or some provincial governments wrt their water policies. I hope I have that right, but I could easily be mixing up my stories.
Regardless of details, my point is this, which is the better mechanism for handling inter-country disputes, meeting in a public parliament to hash things out, or private lawsuits in the courts largely hidden from public scrutiny, each company angling for their own benefit. Do you think doing things in back rooms is good for public policy?
I also have another more general question wrt foreign policy. You, and Trump, and others have voiced opinions that could be generally called isolationist, especially when it comes to the UN. The opinion seems to be that the UN is corrupt and useless. So then why are you concerned if, to use one example, that China has more influence at WHO than the US? If you don't think that WHO serves a useful purpose, why worry about who influences it? But more than that, if the US pulls out of international agreements and wants to go it alone, why do you complain when other countries move in to fill the void internationally, I mean, what did you think was going to happen?
-
What examples of political meddling can you give?
There were many areas of the NAFTA agreement where a company could sue the government of another country, but I have forgotten the exact circumstances under which this could happen. My guess is that it has to do with restraint of trade. My memory is hazy on this, but I seem to recall US companies sueing (or threatening to sue) either the federal or some provincial governments wrt their water policies. I hope I have that right, but I could easily be mixing up my stories.
Regardless of details, my point is this, which is the better mechanism for handling inter-country disputes, meeting in a public parliament to hash things out, or private lawsuits in the courts largely hidden from public scrutiny, each company angling for their own benefit. Do you think doing things in back rooms is good for public policy?
I also have another more general question wrt foreign policy. You, and Trump, and others have voiced opinions that could be generally called isolationist, especially when it comes to the UN. The opinion seems to be that the UN is corrupt and useless. So then why are you concerned if, to use one example, that China has more influence at WHO than the US? If you don't think that WHO serves a useful purpose, why worry about who influences it? But more than that, if the US pulls out of international agreements and wants to go it alone, why do you complain when other countries move in to fill the void internationally, I mean, what did you think was going to happen?
Robert, the misconception about the EU running member countries politically has been explained to this **** a million times over. He simply doesn't read, doesn't care to know or is otherwise locked firmly into his circle of thought that sees life as whatever fits the notion of only the US having freedoms of any kind. In other words, Uncle Sam has done a good job of brainwashing this cat.
Don't allow yourself to get sucked back into such worlds of onanistic completeness. Every piece of shit that hits him medically is somehow both terrible but wonderful because of the system that surrounds it. Dreadful he can't buy the "best" doctors because he doesn't have the bread, but hey, what a beautiful system that only the fat cats can! Weird doesn't begin to describe it; insane might.
-
"onanistic completeness"
I wish I had written that.
-
I wish I had written that.
It's that childhood exposure to Veneto that brings it on.
:-)
-
What examples of political meddling can you give?
There were many areas of the NAFTA agreement where a company could sue the government of another country, but I have forgotten the exact circumstances under which this could happen. My guess is that it has to do with restraint of trade. My memory is hazy on this, but I seem to recall US companies sueing (or threatening to sue) either the federal or some provincial governments wrt their water policies. I hope I have that right, but I could easily be mixing up my stories.
Regardless of details, my point is this, which is the better mechanism for handling inter-country disputes, meeting in a public parliament to hash things out, or private lawsuits in the courts largely hidden from public scrutiny, each company angling for their own benefit. Do you think doing things in back rooms is good for public policy?
I also have another more general question wrt foreign policy. You, and Trump, and others have voiced opinions that could be generally called isolationist, especially when it comes to the UN. The opinion seems to be that the UN is corrupt and useless. So then why are you concerned if, to use one example, that China has more influence at WHO than the US? If you don't think that WHO serves a useful purpose, why worry about who influences it? But more than that, if the US pulls out of international agreements and wants to go it alone, why do you complain when other countries move in to fill the void internationally, I mean, what did you think was going to happen?
Immigration issues. Loss of jobs to foreigners. Regulations from Brussels; loss of sovereignty. Bailing out lazy countries. This last one we kind of have in the US. Some rich states send more money in taxes to Washington than they get back. The extra money goes to poorer states. Lot's of fighting about that. But at least we're all Americans. It creates resentments when you have to bail out people who are strangers, who seem to be taking advantage of the system.
I don't know about how lawsuits work in NAFTA or USMCA. Apparently you don't either. :)
-
...
I also have another more general question wrt foreign policy. You, and Trump, and others have voiced opinions that could be generally called isolationist, especially when it comes to the UN. The opinion seems to be that the UN is corrupt and useless. So then why are you concerned if, to use one example, that China has more influence at WHO than the US? If you don't think that WHO serves a useful purpose, why worry about who influences it? But more than that, if the US pulls out of international agreements and wants to go it alone, why do you complain when other countries move in to fill the void internationally, I mean, what did you think was going to happen?
A lot of Americans have decided that our involvement in overseas affairs has cost us a lot of blood and treasure. That it's not worth it. We're broke, going broker, and let others handle their own defense.
With China having more influence at WHO, it raises the question, WHY? Who have they gotten too? Who at WHO has been paid off? Something smells. We contribute $450 million for WHO operations to China's paltry $30 million. Yet, WHO kowtows to China. They covered for their malfeasance regarding COVID 19.
-
Currently, the people of the UK are holding their collective breath to see whether or not Boris has the balls to fire his chief advisor who blatantly broke lockdown rules in order to drive hundreds of miles from London and back - there is dispute about how often - to take wife and child oop north for supposedly the protection of the child. Really? But others in similar situations can not do the same? Can't even go to the funeral of their dead child in the same town?
There have been dozens of calls for the man's head, including from Tory party members who say keeping him in office nullifies the current restriction laws and underlines the fact of one rule for the proles and another for the politicians. Of course, if Boris lets him go, then who is going to prop up Boris, who is the Great Charlatan with no convictions and few personal abilities of his own, and who in effect, is nothing but the mouthpiece for the chief advisor who, with the tiny group of backroom boys, really form the power in the Tory establishment?
Again we see the colours of those people behind this unrecognizable new Tory party that, along with other malcontents with money, took just over half of Britain and the Brits by the nose and led them over the white cliffs of Brexit.
Corinna, coming when she has, must be the perfect gift: press ahead with Brexit "negotiations" whilst the country and the press is blinded by the pandemic and not paying attention to what's being fixed over Europe.
-
Currently, the people of the UK are holding their collective breath to see whether or not Boris has the balls to fire his chief advisor who blatantly broke lockdown rules in order to drive hundreds of miles from London and back - there is dispute about how often - to take wife and child oop north for supposedly the protection of the child. Really? But others in similar situations can not do the same? Can't even go to the funeral of their dead child in the same town?
There have been dozens of calls for the man's head, including from Tory party members who say keeping him in office nullifies the current restriction laws and underlines the fact of one rule for the proles and another for the politicians. Of course, if Boris lets him go, then who is going to prop up Boris, who is the Great Charlatan with no convictions and few personal abilities of his own, and who in effect, is nothing but the mouthpiece for the chief advisor who, with the tiny group of backroom boys, really form the power in the Tory establishment?
Again we see the colours of those people behind this unrecognizable new Tory party that, along with other malcontents with money, took just over half of Britain and the Brits by the nose and led them over the cliff of Brexit.
Corinna, coming when she has, must be the perfect gift: press ahead with Brexit "negotiations" whilst the country and the press is blinded by the pandemic and not paying attention to what's being fixed over Europe.
I cut the guy a slight bit of slack (is that slang in the UK as well as the US?) because he was apparently trying to protect his child, something nobody has really denied. I know it seems hypocritical, but if it were my kid, I might very well have done the same -- although the weak part of the argument is the idea that some alternative child care might not be available. I think the chief advisor to the PM could probably have arranged something.
-
Slack, sure. R.H.I.P. though. Or maybe it is Elite Has Its Privilege.
Either way, bad form and caught out on it, unapologetic.
-
I cut the guy a slight bit of slack (is that slang in the UK as well as the US?) because he was apparently trying to protect his child, something nobody has really denied. I know it seems hypocritical, but if it were my kid, I might very well have done the same -- although the weak part of the argument is the idea that some alternative child care might not be available. I think the chief advisor to the PM could probably have arranged something.
Yes, it's valid slang in Britain too. In fact, considering that so much of popular parlance derives from Hollywood and music, almost anything to do with slang that flies in America flies everywhere else too where English is the common key. There may well be exceptions within black street culture, where I believe it changes rapidly and from place to place, and may thus be pretty incomprehensible to outsiders at the best of times.
Regarding the kid: were it myself, I too might have said the hell with the rules were there no alternative; but, as you suggest, could that really be the case for him, living in the hallowed halls of superstardom as he does? No government contingency plans available? With this government, however, possibly not!
Importantly - in fact probably the main point; had I done that, it would simply be irresponsible and my head might roll, but then nobody is expected to follow my example, wheres as the guys at the top are all about example and leadership- or supposedly so. In fact, it brings out direct comparisons with some religious leaders and small children...
-
Off topic -- your comments about slang got me going. I've noticed British phrases being picked up in the US with some frequency. "Ring off" or "Rang off" is becoming common because "Hang Up," the American equivalent, becomes meaningless when there's nothing to "hang up" or to hang it on. I've heard "taking the piss" on a few occasions here, although that may be more Aussie than British. Also "wanker" and the British "brilliant" are now widely understood and often used.
-
Also "wanker" and the British "brilliant" are now widely understood and often used.
Although perhaps not in Pahrump, Nevada.
Jeremy
-
According to Sky, the pound earlier today was worth €1.11; when I started trying to sell the apartment some years ago it was around €1.32 or so. The moment it starts to rise, one of the Nouveaux Tories or the another screws up and down it goes! I'm convinced it's an inside job where Minister A buys cheaply (as now) and when it rises again, he sells. At once, Minister B creates another scandal or crisis for him and down it goes again, allowing Minister A to buy even more little squids and get richer and richer as he repeats the cycle. I hope one day he puts it all on one throw and it goes sour.
As Harold Wilson famously remarked after devaluation; it doesn't, of course, mean that the pound in your pocket is worth any less!
Try telling that to any expat or holidaymaker with a memory. I even recall a time when the pound was worth around $2.50.
The thing is, as Europe was supposedly on the skids and Britain had a glorious, shiny new future ahead, why is the euro still doing better than the pound?
You gotta larf.
-
in a word, Germany
-
Negotiations about trade and everything between the UK and the EU are not progressing....
https://www.bbc.com/news/52937766
The UK wants a 'basic deal' ; the EU wants a complete solution in order get a fully balanced deal.
So there are plenty of issues to resolve and it normally takes years to do a trade deal. But this process only has a matter of months left.
The UK is in a bad position to enforce a deal;
50% of its trade is with the EU... the idea of an independent UK is a fairy tail. The EU dictates and is one big block against the smaller UK;
Before the UK had a say how the regulations in the EU were implemented- not anymore- they will have to comply; They have lost control instead of gained control.
And they have lost the straightforward access to the EU-countries. Everything has to be discussed and implemented anew in detail and in line with all the other new arrangements.
It will take years.