I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
But that's of limited profitability for Clinton because so many people find her nasty as well.
Trump's main task should be to reassure female voters (so criticising Clinton is ok so long as it doesn't roll over into misogynism)
If he can get that balance right, he wins.
But it's the first time out in a Man v Woman Presidential debate. On one level, they should be equally up for the sledging - it's what equality is all about. But I still think many will find it as distasteful as a guy boxing a gal....
TBH, I equate Hillary with Thatcher - they're both men here.
She can play the female victim card, but it's pathetic weakling stuff. A candidate can't claim to be strong blah blah and also say they're a victim when anyone with eyes can see the media bias towards her. It just doesn't work at all.
That depends on how Trump does it (if he does, which he probably will). I agree that it would be a serious mistake for Hillary to play the victim card but it would certainly be fair game for her supporters to play the Trump-the-sexist card.
So who has defected more times, Ivan Massow or Winston McKenzie?
Which one's gone where?
Ivan, he's left the Tories, again, and joined the Lib Dems.
“They are really nice people. It is such a change from the Tory party,” said Mr Massow, whose business successes included offering financial services to gay people. “[Theresa May’s plans for] grammar schools make me a little bit angry … I’ve always been a centrist at heart.”
So who has defected more times, Ivan Massow or Winston McKenzie?
Which one's gone where?
Ivan, he's left the Tories, again, and joined the Lib Dems.
“They are really nice people. It is such a change from the Tory party,” said Mr Massow, whose business successes included offering financial services to gay people. “[Theresa May’s plans for] grammar schools make me a little bit angry … I’ve always been a centrist at heart.”
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
But that's of limited profitability for Clinton because so many people find her nasty as well.
Trump's main task should be to reassure female voters (so criticising Clinton is ok so long as it doesn't roll over into misogynism)
If he can get that balance right, he wins.
But it's the first time out in a Man v Woman Presidential debate. On one level, they should be equally up for the sledging - it's what equality is all about. But I still think many will find it as distasteful as a guy boxing a gal....
TBH, I equate Hillary with Thatcher - they're both men here.
She can play the female victim card, but it's pathetic weakling stuff. A candidate can't claim to be strong blah blah and also say they're a victim when anyone with eyes can see the media bias towards her. It just doesn't work at all.
That depends on how Trump does it (if he does, which he probably will). I agree that it would be a serious mistake for Hillary to play the victim card but it would certainly be fair game for her supporters to play the Trump-the-sexist card.
Especially since there is ample evidence of Trump being a misogynist. Doubt he can hide that for long
I see Donald Trump Jnr has set twitter off....he doesn't want to taste the rainbow apparently.
Would you play Russian Roulette with 999,999 empty chambers and 1 full one (that if triggered will kill you, your family and up to 2500 friends, relatives and compatriots?) Now suppose I remove 999,998 chambers that I know are empty. Would you switch or stay? Oops - Monty Hall strikes again - I'll return to my meme How about 100,000? 10,000? 100? 10?
Good stuff. I agree with the logic even if I don't agree with what Farron would want per se.
It's perfectly respectable to say a future Govt might want to have another look at the position in the circumstances that then prevail. Farron and others (it's not just him, though he seems to have a bad dose of it, as does Clegg) just seem (to me at least) to be not handling the collapse of one of the apparent pillars of their world view at all well, and it doesn't strike me as a sensible thing to be quite so blatant in effectively telling the voters they got it wrong.
You seem to be putting words into his mouth, it only takes a little searching to find:
Farron "is not pushing for a “re-run” of June’s vote – and would only support another referendum once the negotiations are done.
“We demand that the British people should have their say on the final deal in a referendum and in the meantime we will hold the Conservative Brexit Government to account and fight for the best possible deal for Britain,” the Lib Dem leader will say.
“Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination."
Which is moronic as what happens if we reject the deal? He's thinking and hoping we can reject the deal and keep the status quo but that isn't what happens ... if we reject the deal once Article 50 has been invoked then after two years we exit to World Trade Organisation terms. So its either accept May's Brexit, or go for maximum Hard Brexit. His option won't be on the ballot paper.
I see Donald Trump Jnr has set twitter off....he doesn't want to taste the rainbow apparently.
Would you play Russian Roulette with 999,999 empty chambers and 1 full one (that if triggered will kill you, your family and up to 2500 friends, relatives and compatriots?) Now suppose I remove 999,998 chambers that I know are empty. Would you switch or stay? Oops - Monty Hall strikes again - I'll return to my meme How about 100,000? 10,000? 100? 10?
At some point you'll decide not to play.
Behind 3 doors you are told there is a Donald Trump and 2 Hiliary Clinton's...you pick a door and asked if you want to switch...
The correct answer to this version of the Monty Hall problem....nail all of them shut so neither can get out!
So who has defected more times, Ivan Massow or Winston McKenzie?
Which one's gone where?
Ivan, he's left the Tories, again, and joined the Lib Dems.
“They are really nice people. It is such a change from the Tory party,” said Mr Massow, whose business successes included offering financial services to gay people. “[Theresa May’s plans for] grammar schools make me a little bit angry … I’ve always been a centrist at heart.”
Are you going to join him as part of the "Yellow Army" TSE?
No, I am a Conservative and Unionist, I shall remain a Tory.
I'm back to my 2001-03 days, and being a critic of the leadership.
That was a quick turnaround, given your cheering of May in the leadership contest!
That was a mixture of
i) JohnO telling me I should be backing her, and I trust JohnO implicitly
ii) I think my cheerleading was down entirely to the fact I had to stop Andrea Leadsom becoming not only Tory leader, but Prime Minister as well. I would have probably been cheerleading Satan or Osama bin Laden if they were up against Leadsom.
Mr. Meeks, worth noting that Newtonian physics has been radically amended by Einstein, Quantum Mechanics etc.
Well, yes and no. Newtonian physics still holds true at the practical level (e.g. getting a spaceship to Venus). It only falls apart at the very small and very large levels - that is where quantum mechanics and other gubbins comes in.
Not that this is my field, I am nowhere near clever enough. However, if you want to understand string theory then Mr. Jessop, gent of this parish, is your man because he understood it.
Good stuff. I agree with the logic even if I don't agree with what Farron would want per se.
It's perfectly respectable to say a future Govt might want to have another look at the position in the circumstances that then prevail. Farron and others (it's not just him, though he seems to have a bad dose of it, as does Clegg) just seem (to me at least) to be not handling the collapse of one of the apparent pillars of their world view at all well, and it doesn't strike me as a sensible thing to be quite so blatant in effectively telling the voters they got it wrong.
You seem to be putting words into his mouth, it only takes a little searching to find:
Farron "is not pushing for a “re-run” of June’s vote – and would only support another referendum once the negotiations are done.
“We demand that the British people should have their say on the final deal in a referendum and in the meantime we will hold the Conservative Brexit Government to account and fight for the best possible deal for Britain,” the Lib Dem leader will say.
“Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination."
Which is moronic as what happens if we reject the deal? He's thinking and hoping we can reject the deal and keep the status quo but that isn't what happens ... if we reject the deal once Article 50 has been invoked then after two years we exit to World Trade Organisation terms. So its either accept May's Brexit, or go for maximum Hard Brexit. His option won't be on the ballot paper.
The slightly depressing thing about this is that nobody in the mainstream media has made this point (at least, if it has, I haven't seen it made).
So who has defected more times, Ivan Massow or Winston McKenzie?
Which one's gone where?
Ivan, he's left the Tories, again, and joined the Lib Dems.
“They are really nice people. It is such a change from the Tory party,” said Mr Massow, whose business successes included offering financial services to gay people. “[Theresa May’s plans for] grammar schools make me a little bit angry … I’ve always been a centrist at heart.”
On a positive note, it looks as though Theresa May is taking the right approach to the trade negotiations and also engaging in dialogue with key international businesses:
Of course, talk is cheap, and doesn't guarantee that our EU friends will play ball. Still, it's very encouraging that she is personally getting a grip on this.
I see Donald Trump Jnr has set twitter off....he doesn't want to taste the rainbow apparently.
Would you play Russian Roulette with 999,999 empty chambers and 1 full one (that if triggered will kill you, your family and up to 2500 friends, relatives and compatriots?) Now suppose I remove 999,998 chambers that I know are empty. Would you switch or stay? Oops - Monty Hall strikes again - I'll return to my meme How about 100,000? 10,000? 100? 10?
At some point you'll decide not to play.
Behind 3 doors you are told there is a Donald Trump and 2 Hiliary Clinton's...you pick a door and asked if you want to switch...
The correct answer to this version of the Monty Hall problem....nail all of them shut so neither can get out!
I see Donald Trump Jnr has set twitter off....he doesn't want to taste the rainbow apparently.
Would you play Russian Roulette with 999,999 empty chambers and 1 full one (that if triggered will kill you, your family and up to 2500 friends, relatives and compatriots?) Now suppose I remove 999,998 chambers that I know are empty. Would you switch or stay? Oops - Monty Hall strikes again - I'll return to my meme How about 100,000? 10,000? 100? 10?
At some point you'll decide not to play.
Behind 3 doors you are told there is a Donald Trump and 2 Hiliary Clinton's...you pick a door and asked if you want to switch...
The correct answer to this version of the Monty Hall problem....nail all of them shut so neither can get out!
Good stuff. I agree with the logic even if I don't agree with what Farron would want per se.
It's perfectly respectable to say a future Govt might want to have another look at the position in the circumstances that then prevail. Farron and others (it's not just him, though he seems to have a bad dose of it, as does Clegg) just seem (to me at least) to be not handling the collapse of one of the apparent pillars of their world view at all well, and it doesn't strike me as a sensible thing to be quite so blatant in effectively telling the voters they got it wrong.
You seem to be putting words into his mouth, it only takes a little searching to find:
Farron "is not pushing for a “re-run” of June’s vote – and would only support another referendum once the negotiations are done.
“We demand that the British people should have their say on the final deal in a referendum and in the meantime we will hold the Conservative Brexit Government to account and fight for the best possible deal for Britain,” the Lib Dem leader will say.
“Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination."
Which is moronic as what happens if we reject the deal? He's thinking and hoping we can reject the deal and keep the status quo but that isn't what happens ... if we reject the deal once Article 50 has been invoked then after two years we exit to World Trade Organisation terms. So its either accept May's Brexit, or go for maximum Hard Brexit. His option won't be on the ballot paper.
Ex Emperor Ming was on R5 last night. If we reject the deal then we remain in the EU apparently. The detail about having served an Article 50 notice, the withdrawal of Cameron's deal (not that we'd really notice that) and the various other opt outs including the rebate seemed to have completely passed him by. It really strikes me as a genuinely silly position to adopt. Arguing for a second referendum before Article 50 may be undemocratic etc but it is at least rational.
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
I see Donald Trump Jnr has set twitter off....he doesn't want to taste the rainbow apparently.
Would you play Russian Roulette with 999,999 empty chambers and 1 full one (that if triggered will kill you, your family and up to 2500 friends, relatives and compatriots?) Now suppose I remove 999,998 chambers that I know are empty. Would you switch or stay? Oops - Monty Hall strikes again - I'll return to my meme How about 100,000? 10,000? 100? 10?
At some point you'll decide not to play.
Behind 3 doors you are told there is a Donald Trump and 2 Hiliary Clinton's...you pick a door and asked if you want to switch...
The correct answer to this version of the Monty Hall problem....nail all of them shut so neither can get out!
Inside the presidential box is a president that can be in one of two states - Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. The actual state depends on whether a radioactive atom decays. Do you open the box and let the waveform collapse (and you might get the one you don't want) or keep it shut?
Good stuff. I agree with the logic even if I don't agree with what Farron would want per se.
It's perfectly respectable to say a future Govt might want to have another look at the position in the circumstances that then prevail. Farron and others (it's not just him, though he seems to have a bad dose of it, as does Clegg) just seem (to me at least) to be not handling the collapse of one of the apparent pillars of their world view at all well, and it doesn't strike me as a sensible thing to be quite so blatant in effectively telling the voters they got it wrong.
You seem to be putting words into his mouth, it only takes a little searching to find:
Farron "is not pushing for a “re-run” of June’s vote – and would only support another referendum once the negotiations are done.
“We demand that the British people should have their say on the final deal in a referendum and in the meantime we will hold the Conservative Brexit Government to account and fight for the best possible deal for Britain,” the Lib Dem leader will say.
“Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination."
Which is moronic as what happens if we reject the deal? He's thinking and hoping we can reject the deal and keep the status quo but that isn't what happens ... if we reject the deal once Article 50 has been invoked then after two years we exit to World Trade Organisation terms. So its either accept May's Brexit, or go for maximum Hard Brexit. His option won't be on the ballot paper.
Indeed. With Remain dead, the only options are "Deal" or "No Deal". As Greece showed, a Noel Edmonds referendum is a really dumb idea.
On a positive note, it looks as though Theresa May is taking the right approach to the trade negotiations and also engaging in dialogue with key international businesses:
Of course, talk is cheap, and doesn't guarantee that our EU friends will play ball. Still, it's very encouraging that she is personally getting a grip on this.
Did you happen to read the whole briefing from Moody's yesterday? Very interesting. The part about local branches I'm Europe instead of fully capitalised subsidiaries was important IMO. It means that we can trade Euro denominated derivatives as long as they are conducted via a server room in Dublin which charges a negligible transaction fee.
Did you happen to read the whole briefing from Moody's yesterday? Very interesting. The part about local branches I'm Europe instead of fully capitalised subsidiaries was important IMO. It means that we can trade Euro denominated derivatives as long as they are conducted via a server room in Dublin which charges a negligible transaction fee.
No, I haven't read the full report. Sounds interesting, I'll take a look.
Good stuff. I agree with the logic even if I don't agree with what Farron would want per se.
It's perfectly respectable to say a future Govt might want to have another look at the position in the circumstances that then prevail. Farron and others (it's not just him, though he seems to have a bad dose of it, as does Clegg) just seem (to me at least) to be not handling the collapse of one of the apparent pillars of their world view at all well, and it doesn't strike me as a sensible thing to be quite so blatant in effectively telling the voters they got it wrong.
You seem to be putting words into his mouth, it only takes a little searching to find:
Farron "is not pushing for a “re-run” of June’s vote – and would only support another referendum once the negotiations are done.
“We demand that the British people should have their say on the final deal in a referendum and in the meantime we will hold the Conservative Brexit Government to account and fight for the best possible deal for Britain,” the Lib Dem leader will say.
“Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination."
Which is moronic as what happens if we reject the deal? He's thinking and hoping we can reject the deal and keep the status quo but that isn't what happens ... if we reject the deal once Article 50 has been invoked then after two years we exit to World Trade Organisation terms. So its either accept May's Brexit, or go for maximum Hard Brexit. His option won't be on the ballot paper.
Indeed. With Remain dead, the only options are "Deal" or "No Deal". As Greece showed, a Noel Edmonds referendum is a really dumb idea.
That's rubbish, of course we can change our minds. Nothing is ever set in stone, otherwise 1975 referendum would have been the last word.
Good stuff. I agree with the logic even if I don't agree with what Farron would want per se.
It's perfectly respectable to say a future Govt might want to have another look at the position in the circumstances that then prevail. Farron and others (it's not just him, though he seems to have a bad dose of it, as does Clegg) just seem (to me at least) to be not handling the collapse of one of the apparent pillars of their world view at all well, and it doesn't strike me as a sensible thing to be quite so blatant in effectively telling the voters they got it wrong.
You seem to be putting words into his mouth, it only takes a little searching to find:
Farron "is not pushing for a “re-run” of June’s vote – and would only support another referendum once the negotiations are done.
“We demand that the British people should have their say on the final deal in a referendum and in the meantime we will hold the Conservative Brexit Government to account and fight for the best possible deal for Britain,” the Lib Dem leader will say.
“Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination."
Which is moronic as what happens if we reject the deal? He's thinking and hoping we can reject the deal and keep the status quo but that isn't what happens ... if we reject the deal once Article 50 has been invoked then after two years we exit to World Trade Organisation terms. So its either accept May's Brexit, or go for maximum Hard Brexit. His option won't be on the ballot paper.
Indeed. With Remain dead, the only options are "Deal" or "No Deal". As Greece showed, a Noel Edmonds referendum is a really dumb idea.
That's rubbish, of course we can change our minds. Nothing is ever set in stone, otherwise 1975 referendum would have been the last word.
Indeed of course we can change our minds, if in 2057 (same timeframe as between 75 and 16) we vote to join the EU with no rebate, join the Euro, join Schengen (if its not a single nation already) then of course we can do that.
What we can't do is keep the status quo after Article 50 is invoked.
Good stuff. I agree with the logic even if I don't agree with what Farron would want per se.
It's perfectly respectable to say a future Govt might want to have another look at the position in the circumstances that then prevail. Farron and others (it's not just him, though he seems to have a bad dose of it, as does Clegg) just seem (to me at least) to be not handling the collapse of one of the apparent pillars of their world view at all well, and it doesn't strike me as a sensible thing to be quite so blatant in effectively telling the voters they got it wrong.
You seem to be putting words into his mouth, it only takes a little searching to find:
Farron "is not pushing for a “re-run” of June’s vote – and would only support another referendum once the negotiations are done.
“We demand that the British people should have their say on the final deal in a referendum and in the meantime we will hold the Conservative Brexit Government to account and fight for the best possible deal for Britain,” the Lib Dem leader will say.
“Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination."
Which is moronic as what happens if we reject the deal? He's thinking and hoping we can reject the deal and keep the status quo but that isn't what happens ... if we reject the deal once Article 50 has been invoked then after two years we exit to World Trade Organisation terms. So its either accept May's Brexit, or go for maximum Hard Brexit. His option won't be on the ballot paper.
Indeed. With Remain dead, the only options are "Deal" or "No Deal". As Greece showed, a Noel Edmonds referendum is a really dumb idea.
That's rubbish, of course we can change our minds. Nothing is ever set in stone, otherwise 1975 referendum would have been the last word.
We can change our minds by deciding to rejoin, of course we can. But only after we have left.
I see that Leavers, led by Douglas Carswell, are spending this morning arguing that tides aren't caused by the moon.
Well, if you think the sun revolves round a flat earth..
Shouldn't an 'open seas' Brexiteer know this stuff?
Won any referenda recently chaps?
We've done this a thousand times before and it's getting tiring with you lot.
It's referendums.
In Latin?
Referenda is for people whose knowledge of latin, language and grammar starts and finishes with the fact that many plural words end in 'a'
If you have several votes on the same subject matter it is Referenda If you have votes on several different subjects then it is Referendums
That's the exact opposite of what I said before.
That is not right.
Leaving aside the fact that it isn't actually a latin word, but invented we think by the Swiss in the 1800s, a referendum is an item to be decided in the same way that an agendum is an item to be discussed and an addendum is an item to be added. Referenda is therefore a batch of items to be decidedn as agenda and addenda.
Latin doesn't have a gerundive plural form, unlike english (hearings, sittings etc.) But when usedin English the English plural format is acceptable for such latin imports, hence agendas as well as referendums.
Good stuff. I agree with the logic even if I don't agree with what Farron would want per se.
It's perfectly respectable to say a future Govt might want to have another look at the position in the circumstances that then prevail. Farron and others (it's not just him, though he seems to have a bad dose of it, as does Clegg) just seem (to me at least) to be not handling the collapse of one of the apparent pillars of their world view at all well, and it doesn't strike me as a sensible thing to be quite so blatant in effectively telling the voters they got it wrong.
You seem to be putting words into his mouth, it only takes a little searching to find:
Farron "is not pushing for a “re-run” of June’s vote – and would only support another referendum once the negotiations are done.
“We demand that the British people should have their say on the final deal in a referendum and in the meantime we will hold the Conservative Brexit Government to account and fight for the best possible deal for Britain,” the Lib Dem leader will say.
“Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination."
Which is moronic as what happens if we reject the deal? He's thinking and hoping we can reject the deal and keep the status quo but that isn't what happens ... if we reject the deal once Article 50 has been invoked then after two years we exit to World Trade Organisation terms. So its either accept May's Brexit, or go for maximum Hard Brexit. His option won't be on the ballot paper.
Indeed. With Remain dead, the only options are "Deal" or "No Deal". As Greece showed, a Noel Edmonds referendum is a really dumb idea.
That's rubbish, of course we can change our minds. Nothing is ever set in stone, otherwise 1975 referendum would have been the last word.
The 1975 result was overturned because the EU has changed immeasurably since then, and not to our advantage. If the EU changes again and dumps the Euro, ever closer union and applies limits to free movement or turns it into free movement of labour instead of people, we might consider rejoining. But tbh, a dissolution of the EU is more likely than those changes, the superstate also has a higher likelihood which we're never going to join.
Miss Plato, I didn't mind McCoy. My first Doctor, and Ace was a rather lovely companion. One of my earliest memories is of her running away from cybermen.
So who has defected more times, Ivan Massow or Winston McKenzie?
Which one's gone where?
Ivan, he's left the Tories, again, and joined the Lib Dems.
“They are really nice people. It is such a change from the Tory party,” said Mr Massow, whose business successes included offering financial services to gay people. “[Theresa May’s plans for] grammar schools make me a little bit angry … I’ve always been a centrist at heart.”
Tale of Two Treaties EU Court rejects challenge to EU Commission, ECB and Eurogroup over Cyprus banking actions https://t.co/i4U0BjQ7NL #EU #ESM #ECB #banking
I see that Leavers, led by Douglas Carswell, are spending this morning arguing that tides aren't caused by the moon.
Well, if you think the sun revolves round a flat earth..
Shouldn't an 'open seas' Brexiteer know this stuff?
Won any referenda recently chaps?
We've done this a thousand times before and it's getting tiring with you lot.
It's referendums.
In Latin?
Referenda is for people whose knowledge of latin, language and grammar starts and finishes with the fact that many plural words end in 'a'
If you have several votes on the same subject matter it is Referenda If you have votes on several different subjects then it is Referendums
That's the exact opposite of what I said before.
That is not right.
Leaving aside the fact that it isn't actually a latin word, but invented we think by the Swiss in the 1800s, a referendum is an item to be decided in the same way that an agendum is an item to be discussed and an addendum is an item to be added. Referenda is therefore a batch of items to be decidedn as agenda and addenda.
Latin doesn't have a gerundive plural form, unlike english (hearings, sittings etc.) But when usedin English the English plural format is acceptable for such latin imports, hence agendas as well as referendums.
That may be the case if you are arguing for it to always be referendums, that makes no sense for why one subject is referenda and different subjects is referendums. The exact opposite should be the case.
From Wiki, sourced from the Oxford English Dictionary 'Referendums' is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.
So several votes on one subject matter is referendums. Votes on several different subjects could be referenda.
Miss Plato, I didn't mind McCoy. My first Doctor, and Ace was a rather lovely companion. One of my earliest memories is of her running away from cybermen.
I rather liked Sylvester McCoy's and Colin Baker's Doctor.
Those series were produced with huge budget cuts, and a BBC One controller who was not a fan of the series.
That said, I really didn't like Colin Baker's outfit, far too plain and boring for my tastes
Tale of Two Treaties EU Court rejects challenge to EU Commission, ECB and Eurogroup over Cyprus banking actions https://t.co/i4U0BjQ7NL #EU #ESM #ECB #banking
This was the deliberate fleecing of Cypriot bank accounts by the commission back in 2013 I think. The ESM was really outside the scope of the treaty as it stood, and therefore was done in a slightly unique way, as an agreement in the Eurozone by 'special co-operation'.
The ECJ has declared it a legal move, and therefore the levy on account holders is valid and legal also.
Mr. Eagles, yeah, I read somewhere that when the Doctor and Ace wandered off in the final shot in 1993, give or take, they had no idea it would be the last episode.
Sounds vaguely reminiscent of BBC bigwigs disliking Top Gear [although the latter was much more popular than Old Who, of course].
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, I suppose Peri's outfits were more to your taste?
Tale of Two Treaties EU Court rejects challenge to EU Commission, ECB and Eurogroup over Cyprus banking actions https://t.co/i4U0BjQ7NL #EU #ESM #ECB #banking
This was the deliberate fleecing of Cypriot bank accounts by the commission back in 2013 I think. The ESM was really outside the scope of the treaty as it stood, and therefore was done in a slightly unique way, as an agreement in the Eurozone by 'special co-operation'.
The ECJ has declared it a legal move, and therefore the levy on account holders is valid and legal also.
It's a ruling which makes me glad to be leaving the EU. Another reason why this idea that there will be a rush for the exit door in the City if we leave the single market is not true.
Mr. Eagles, yeah, I read somewhere that when the Doctor and Ace wandered off in the final shot in 1993, give or take, they had no idea it would be the last episode.
Sounds vaguely reminiscent of BBC bigwigs disliking Top Gear [although the latter was much more popular than Old Who, of course].
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, I suppose Peri's outfits were more to your taste?
Regarding Peri's outfit, I plead the filth amendment
Miss Plato, I didn't mind McCoy. My first Doctor, and Ace was a rather lovely companion. One of my earliest memories is of her running away from cybermen.
I rather liked Sylvester McCoy's and Colin Baker's Doctor.
Those series were produced with huge budget cuts, and a BBC One controller who was not a fan of the series.
That said, I really didn't like Colin Baker's outfit, far too plain and boring for my tastes
Doctor Who died permanently for me when Peter Davison succeeded Tom Baker. In my child's eyes, Tom Baker was The Doctor, and I could never come to terms with this vet from the programme my mum watched becoming the timelord.
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Mr. Eagles, yeah, I read somewhere that when the Doctor and Ace wandered off in the final shot in 1993, give or take, they had no idea it would be the last episode.
Sounds vaguely reminiscent of BBC bigwigs disliking Top Gear [although the latter was much more popular than Old Who, of course].
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, I suppose Peri's outfits were more to your taste?
Regarding Peri's outfit, I plead the filth amendment
On former assistants, have you seen the latest pictures from the set of Jumanji? You might want to shut your office door and close the blinds before you look for them.
I see that Leavers, led by Douglas Carswell, are spending this morning arguing that tides aren't caused by the moon.
Well, if you think the sun revolves round a flat earth..
Shouldn't an 'open seas' Brexiteer know this stuff?
Won any referenda recently chaps?
We've done this a thousand times before and it's getting tiring with you lot.
It's referendums.
In Latin?
Referenda is for people whose knowledge of latin, language and grammar starts and finishes with the fact that many plural words end in 'a'
If you have several votes on the same subject matter it is Referenda If you have votes on several different subjects then it is Referendums
That's the exact opposite of what I said before.
That is not right.
Leaving aside the fact that it isn't actually a latin word, but invented we think by the Swiss in the 1800s, a referendum is an item to be decided in the same way that an agendum is an item to be discussed and an addendum is an item to be added. Referenda is therefore a batch of items to be decidedn as agenda and addenda.
Latin doesn't have a gerundive plural form, unlike english (hearings, sittings etc.) But when usedin English the English plural format is acceptable for such latin imports, hence agendas as well as referendums.
Refero is perfectly good Latin for raising a subject for debate in the senate. Weirdly, the word for doing the same thing for a vote by the whole people is fero; referre ad populum therefore means to have a second vote on the same issue. So referendum would mean a proposal to be put to the people again. But I think referendum in modern speak should be treated as a loan word into English, rather than as Latin.
Miss Plato, I didn't mind McCoy. My first Doctor, and Ace was a rather lovely companion. One of my earliest memories is of her running away from cybermen.
I rather liked Sylvester McCoy's and Colin Baker's Doctor.
Those series were produced with huge budget cuts, and a BBC One controller who was not a fan of the series.
That said, I really didn't like Colin Baker's outfit, far too plain and boring for my tastes
The last seasons are actually quite wonderful. It starts-ish with Paradise Towers, which could easily be imagined with David Tennant and Rose in it, and by the time the Daleks enter at the start of the next season, it's a massively different program to what Colin Baker was in.
Seriously, look at, say, Terror of the Vervoids and even the ropiest episode from Series 25. Totally different and for the better.
Mr. Llama, I agree entirely. The idea that scientific consensus is an argument or evidence in itself is utterly wrong-headed. Science is about whether you're right or wrong, not whether you're in the majority.
It's science, not democracy.
Edited extra bit: anyway, much as I'm enjoying this chat, the time to walk the dog has arrived.
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts (Richard Feynman)
Newton may have been superseded but I believe is still as near as makes no difference. Someone told me that NASA did the calculations for the moon landings on pure Newtonian physics and as if they had never heard of Einstein.
Mr. Eagles, yeah, I read somewhere that when the Doctor and Ace wandered off in the final shot in 1993, give or take, they had no idea it would be the last episode.
Sounds vaguely reminiscent of BBC bigwigs disliking Top Gear [although the latter was much more popular than Old Who, of course].
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, I suppose Peri's outfits were more to your taste?
Regarding Peri's outfit, I plead the filth amendment
On former assistants, have you seen the latest pictures from the set of Jumanji? You might want to shut your office door and close the blinds before you look for them.
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Having trained as a scientist, I know that proof is not a part of science. Consensus is the closest that science can come to proof. There is, for example, consensus that theories such as those of Newton and Einstein are good descriptions of certain aspects of reality, but there is no proof.
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts (Richard Feynman)
Newton may have been superseded but I believe is still as near as makes no difference. Someone told me that NASA did the calculations for the moon landings on pure Newtonian physics and as if they had never heard of Einstein.
It depends what you're working on. The moon landings required no consideration of relativity, but GPS navigation, for example, must take relativistic effects into account.
Miss Plato, I didn't mind McCoy. My first Doctor, and Ace was a rather lovely companion. One of my earliest memories is of her running away from cybermen.
I rather liked Sylvester McCoy's and Colin Baker's Doctor.
Those series were produced with huge budget cuts, and a BBC One controller who was not a fan of the series.
That said, I really didn't like Colin Baker's outfit, far too plain and boring for my tastes
Doctor Who died permanently for me when Peter Davison succeeded Tom Baker. In my child's eyes, Tom Baker was The Doctor, and I could never come to terms with this vet from the programme my mum watched becoming the timelord.
Tom Baker? Pah! The last episode of Doctor Who I watched was when William Hartnell quit the series.
Mr. Eagles, yeah, I read somewhere that when the Doctor and Ace wandered off in the final shot in 1993, give or take, they had no idea it would be the last episode.
Sounds vaguely reminiscent of BBC bigwigs disliking Top Gear [although the latter was much more popular than Old Who, of course].
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, I suppose Peri's outfits were more to your taste?
Regarding Peri's outfit, I plead the filth amendment
On former assistants, have you seen the latest pictures from the set of Jumanji? You might want to shut your office door and close the blinds before you look for them.
Mr. Eagles, yeah, I read somewhere that when the Doctor and Ace wandered off in the final shot in 1993, give or take, they had no idea it would be the last episode.
Sounds vaguely reminiscent of BBC bigwigs disliking Top Gear [although the latter was much more popular than Old Who, of course].
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, I suppose Peri's outfits were more to your taste?
Regarding Peri's outfit, I plead the filth amendment
On former assistants, have you seen the latest pictures from the set of Jumanji? You might want to shut your office door and close the blinds before you look for them.
Theresa May in New York: Brexit voters “did not vote to turn inwards or walk away from any of our partners in the world” *
Of course they did. Not all of them, but in large part, certainly. That's a space for the Lib Dems. Brexit is unlikely to resolve anything because the EU is still the dominant political and economic force in the Europe, we're still a middle ranking European country and we don't have a good alternative relationship to substitute for membership.
Proposing a second referendum on the particular deal is a bad idea for the Lib Dems. Despite the real practical issues noted on this forum, there is an intellectual argument for a referendum to decide what we want, rather than what we don't want, as we did last time. The problem is one of credibility. Everyone knows there won't be a second referendum. Proposing it just raises suspicions about motives. The Lib Dems should play a longer game. How can we improve our relationship with the EU over five years, ten years? No-one else is doing that at all.
* I have noticed politicians often speak to an unintended truth when they say a policy is NOT something. By rejecting it they implicitly accept the reality of it. Same thing when David Davis said, “Brexit isn’t about making the best of a bad job. It is about seizing the huge and exciting opportunities that will flow from a new place for Britain in the world. There will be new freedoms, new opportunities, new horizons for this great country.”
"Making the best of a bad job" is probably the most accurate seven word summary of Brexit policy for the next ten years.
Apparently Fat Head on Sky has a new daily hour show dedicated to BREXIT.
Boulton writes rubbish in STimes/has done for yrs and lost his mind over Brexit. Michael Deacon is so biased on Brexit, I hardly read his stuff now - its not funny or clever when his hobbyhorse trots up.
When a commentator stops being quoted on PB, they've lost the plot.
Proposing a second referendum on the particular deal is a bad idea for the Lib Dems. Despite the real practical issues noted on this forum, there is an intellectual argument for a referendum to decide what we want, rather than what we don't want, as we did last time.
If the process of Brexit can be dragged out long enough perhaps there will eventually be some mileage in pointing out that what was rejected was Cameron's forever half-in, half-out deal and never joining the Euro.
Theresa May in New York: Brexit voters “did not vote to turn inwards or walk away from any of our partners in the world” *
Of course they did. Not all of them, but in large part, certainly. That's a space for the Lib Dems. Brexit is unlikely to resolve anything because the EU is still the dominant political and economic force in the Europe, we're still a middle ranking European country and we don't have a good alternative relationship to substitute for membership.
Proposing a second referendum on the particular deal is a bad idea for the Lib Dems. Despite the real practical issues noted on this forum, there is an intellectual argument for a referendum to decide what we want, rather than what we don't want, as we did last time. The problem is one of credibility. Everyone knows there won't be a second referendum. Proposing it just raises suspicions about motives. The Lib Dems should play a longer game. How can we improve our relationship with the EU over five years, ten years? No-one else is doing that at all.
* I have noticed politicians often speak to an unintended truth when they say a policy is NOT something. By rejecting it they implicitly accept the reality of it. Same thing when David Davis said, “Brexit isn’t about making the best of a bad job. It is about seizing the huge and exciting opportunities that will flow from a new place for Britain in the world. There will be new freedoms, new opportunities, new horizons for this great country.”
"Making the best of a bad job" is probably the most accurate seven word summary of Brexit policy for the next ten years.
Middle ranking? Which dozen or so countries rank above us?
As for the last bit, that's what the referendum was about. Two options, neither of which was guaranteed to be as good as the status quo.
For Hillary fans - from WaPo re her terrible honesty ratings.
And her dishonesty stretches back decades. As the late, great William Safire pointed out in a 1996 New York Times column, she delivered a “blizzard of lies” as first lady — about Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, her representation of a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S&L and how she made a 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading simply by studying the Wall Street Journal. Even back then, Safire concluded, Clinton was “a congenital liar.”
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Having trained as a scientist, I know that proof is not a part of science. Consensus is the closest that science can come to proof. There is, for example, consensus that theories such as those of Newton and Einstein are good descriptions of certain aspects of reality, but there is no proof.
Does that not depend on which branch of science one is looking at, Mr Enjineeya? I should have thought that some ideas were capable of proof (if not using the techniques of mathematical proof), such as the existence of elements, photosynthesis, circulation of blood and so forth. Others are not so easily confirmed and remain at the conjecture level, at least for the moment. Consensus of learned is not, as Mr Dancer pointed out, any guarantee of being correct.
Miss Plato, I didn't mind McCoy. My first Doctor, and Ace was a rather lovely companion. One of my earliest memories is of her running away from cybermen.
I rather liked Sylvester McCoy's and Colin Baker's Doctor.
Those series were produced with huge budget cuts, and a BBC One controller who was not a fan of the series.
That said, I really didn't like Colin Baker's outfit, far too plain and boring for my tastes
Doctor Who died permanently for me when Peter Davison succeeded Tom Baker. In my child's eyes, Tom Baker was The Doctor, and I could never come to terms with this vet from the programme my mum watched becoming the timelord.
Tom Baker? Pah! The last episode of Doctor Who I watched was when William Hartnell quit the series.
In refreshing my mind about what Hartnell looked like (the family had no TV in the 60s - in fact until the 80s), I Googled him. The sad thing is that having got to 'Willia" Google gave me the autosuggest list of Williams to choose from. Hartnell was top, Shakespeare was only second.
For Hillary fans - from WaPo re her terrible honesty ratings.
And her dishonesty stretches back decades. As the late, great William Safire pointed out in a 1996 New York Times column, she delivered a “blizzard of lies” as first lady — about Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, her representation of a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S&L and how she made a 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading simply by studying the Wall Street Journal. Even back then, Safire concluded, Clinton was “a congenital liar.”
Miss Plato, I didn't mind McCoy. My first Doctor, and Ace was a rather lovely companion. One of my earliest memories is of her running away from cybermen.
I rather liked Sylvester McCoy's and Colin Baker's Doctor.
Those series were produced with huge budget cuts, and a BBC One controller who was not a fan of the series.
That said, I really didn't like Colin Baker's outfit, far too plain and boring for my tastes
Doctor Who died permanently for me when Peter Davison succeeded Tom Baker. In my child's eyes, Tom Baker was The Doctor, and I could never come to terms with this vet from the programme my mum watched becoming the timelord.
Tom Baker? Pah! The last episode of Doctor Who I watched was when William Hartnell quit the series.
In refreshing my mind about what Hartnell looked like (the family had no TV in the 60s - in fact until the 80s), I Googled him. The sad thing is that having got to 'Willia" Google gave me the autosuggest list of Williams to choose from. Hartnell was top, Shakespeare was only second.
For Hillary fans - from WaPo re her terrible honesty ratings.
And her dishonesty stretches back decades. As the late, great William Safire pointed out in a 1996 New York Times column, she delivered a “blizzard of lies” as first lady — about Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, her representation of a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S&L and how she made a 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading simply by studying the Wall Street Journal. Even back then, Safire concluded, Clinton was “a congenital liar.”
If I remember correctly, Clinton sacked the in-house travel team, falsely accused one of them of committing fraud then outsourced the work to a friend's company.
I see sarkozy is demanding immigrants fully embrace French culture....will that include plenty of extra material affairs, being rude to tourists & having an arrogant superior opinion of ones cuisine & vino?
How many European countries would you rank above us?
How many European countries would you rank below us?
Does that put us in the 'middle'?
MIddle ranking in world terms and therefore a regional player, which makes the EU very important to us.
Edited: the top ranking countries are the United States, China and to the extent it is supranational, the EU
The EU does not have a seat on the Security Council and is an observer at G7 & G20.
The EU does not have any military force projection worth the name and only one of its members - France - has a military which might be considered 'world class' - but its the French military, not the EUs.
We export more to the rest of the world than we do to the EU.
The EU exports more to us than we do to them.
Not bad for a 'middle ranking' country, nor too shoddy a negotiating position either....
For Hillary fans - from WaPo re her terrible honesty ratings.
And her dishonesty stretches back decades. As the late, great William Safire pointed out in a 1996 New York Times column, she delivered a “blizzard of lies” as first lady — about Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, her representation of a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S&L and how she made a 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading simply by studying the Wall Street Journal. Even back then, Safire concluded, Clinton was “a congenital liar.”
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Having trained as a scientist, I know that proof is not a part of science. Consensus is the closest that science can come to proof. There is, for example, consensus that theories such as those of Newton and Einstein are good descriptions of certain aspects of reality, but there is no proof.
Does that not depend on which branch of science one is looking at, Mr Enjineeya? I should have thought that some ideas were capable of proof (if not using the techniques of mathematical proof), such as the existence of elements, photosynthesis, circulation of blood and so forth. Others are not so easily confirmed and remain at the conjecture level, at least for the moment. Consensus of learned is not, as Mr Dancer pointed out, any guarantee of being correct.
There is no guarantee of anything being correct, but scientists who have spent their lives studying and gaining expertise in a particular area are more likely to be correct in their predictions relating to that area than people who have no expertise in that field.
How many European countries would you rank above us?
How many European countries would you rank below us?
Does that put us in the 'middle'?
MIddle ranking in world terms and therefore a regional player, which makes the EU very important to us.
Same question then. Of the 195 world nations:
How many would you rank above us?
How many would you rank below us?
Middle ranking is somewhere like Argentina.
A quick check of world GDP stats on your old wikipedia gives countries like Azerbaijan, Cote d'Ivoire and Bolivia. Argentina are 'Championship' if the analogy holds.
Anyone trying to say GB is 'middle ranking' in Europe has an odd perception of what "about 2nd" means.
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Having trained as a scientist, I know that proof is not a part of science. Consensus is the closest that science can come to proof. There is, for example, consensus that theories such as those of Newton and Einstein are good descriptions of certain aspects of reality, but there is no proof.
Err There is proof. Einstein forecast that gravity would bend light..It is now proven . Newtonian physics works - in a limted fashion.
Comments
Now suppose I remove 999,998 chambers that I know are empty. Would you switch or stay?
Oops - Monty Hall strikes again - I'll return to my meme
How about 100,000? 10,000? 100? 10?
At some point you'll decide not to play.
The correct answer to this version of the Monty Hall problem....nail all of them shut so neither can get out!
i) JohnO telling me I should be backing her, and I trust JohnO implicitly
ii) I think my cheerleading was down entirely to the fact I had to stop Andrea Leadsom becoming not only Tory leader, but Prime Minister as well. I would have probably been cheerleading Satan or Osama bin Laden if they were up against Leadsom.
Not that this is my field, I am nowhere near clever enough. However, if you want to understand string theory then Mr. Jessop, gent of this parish, is your man because he understood it.
It's like arguing he wants free love, but the options are monogamy or voting it down in favour of castration.
If you have votes on several different subjects then it is Referendums
A few days to stuff the boxes and exclude more Corbyn supporters perhaps ?
Interesting point of discussion - Would Andrea Leadsom have kept Osborne in the Cabinet? I suspect so...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/19/theresa-may-dismisses-threat-of-brexit-deal-veto
Of course, talk is cheap, and doesn't guarantee that our EU friends will play ball. Still, it's very encouraging that she is personally getting a grip on this.
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/778182418306048000
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Bitter lady upset with Labour and the Tories...rant rant rant.
What we can't do is keep the status quo after Article 50 is invoked.
Leaving aside the fact that it isn't actually a latin word, but invented we think by the Swiss in the 1800s, a referendum is an item to be decided in the same way that an agendum is an item to be discussed and an addendum is an item to be added. Referenda is therefore a batch of items to be decidedn as agenda and addenda.
Latin doesn't have a gerundive plural form, unlike english (hearings, sittings etc.) But when usedin English the English plural format is acceptable for such latin imports, hence agendas as well as referendums.
Tale of Two Treaties
EU Court rejects challenge to EU Commission, ECB and Eurogroup over Cyprus banking actions
https://t.co/i4U0BjQ7NL
#EU #ESM #ECB #banking
Stephen Bush
Case in point, Tim Farron. Men are 7 - seven - points more likely to say they dislike him.
And yet, when you show these same people a picture of him, they have no idea who he is.
@the_nell_87 Nah, they also tell pollsters they've never heard of him.
From Wiki, sourced from the Oxford English Dictionary
'Referendums' is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.
So several votes on one subject matter is referendums.
Votes on several different subjects could be referenda.
Those series were produced with huge budget cuts, and a BBC One controller who was not a fan of the series.
That said, I really didn't like Colin Baker's outfit, far too plain and boring for my tastes
The ECJ has declared it a legal move, and therefore the levy on account holders is valid and legal also.
Sounds vaguely reminiscent of BBC bigwigs disliking Top Gear [although the latter was much more popular than Old Who, of course].
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, I suppose Peri's outfits were more to your taste?
"Anyone looking forward to PollyT on BBC DP?
Bitter lady upset with Labour and the Tories...rant rant rant."
I felt a little sorry for her. The bright, black bloke next to her was doing his best to be gentle, but she came over as ... thick.
She should have been used during the ... can I mention the R word? ... Leave would have won by around 20% then.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Seriously, look at, say, Terror of the Vervoids and even the ropiest episode from Series 25. Totally different and for the better.
The New York Times on Hitler in the 1920s... the classic 'c'mon he doesn't *really* mean it', argument: https://t.co/esZsqoFtMN
It's science, not democracy.
Edited extra bit: anyway, much as I'm enjoying this chat, the time to walk the dog has arrived.
Newton may have been superseded but I believe is still as near as makes no difference. Someone told me that NASA did the calculations for the moon landings on pure Newtonian physics and as if they had never heard of Einstein.
Could you provide a link, for research purposes.
I like to think of Russel T Davies Dark Season as a possible continuation - I think he's having a bit of a laugh with the credits ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npkYRsMuZyM
Time Out
Shoutout to whoever wrote the copy for this amazing cover. Brilliant. @TimeOutLondon https://t.co/VF8tDDqfkW
@brucerisk: Well done @ClaudiaWebbe on @daily_politics...up against #AndrewNeil who actually thought last night's #dispatches was credible!? #ayesure
Whenever I see a picture of Karen Gillan, I have the urge to have a cigarette.
I still haven't recovered from her performance in 'Not Another Happy Ending'
Of course they did. Not all of them, but in large part, certainly. That's a space for the Lib Dems. Brexit is unlikely to resolve anything because the EU is still the dominant political and economic force in the Europe, we're still a middle ranking European country and we don't have a good alternative relationship to substitute for membership.
Proposing a second referendum on the particular deal is a bad idea for the Lib Dems. Despite the real practical issues noted on this forum, there is an intellectual argument for a referendum to decide what we want, rather than what we don't want, as we did last time. The problem is one of credibility. Everyone knows there won't be a second referendum. Proposing it just raises suspicions about motives. The Lib Dems should play a longer game. How can we improve our relationship with the EU over five years, ten years? No-one else is doing that at all.
* I have noticed politicians often speak to an unintended truth when they say a policy is NOT something. By rejecting it they implicitly accept the reality of it. Same thing when David Davis said, “Brexit isn’t about making the best of a bad job. It is about seizing the huge and exciting opportunities that will flow from a new place for Britain in the world. There will be new freedoms, new opportunities, new horizons for this great country.”
"Making the best of a bad job" is probably the most accurate seven word summary of Brexit policy for the next ten years.
When a commentator stops being quoted on PB, they've lost the plot.
How many European countries would you rank below us?
Does that put us in the 'middle'?
As for the last bit, that's what the referendum was about. Two options, neither of which was guaranteed to be as good as the status quo.
Edited: the top ranking countries are the United States, China and to the extent it is supranational, the EU
And her dishonesty stretches back decades. As the late, great William Safire pointed out in a 1996 New York Times column, she delivered a “blizzard of lies” as first lady — about Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, her representation of a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S&L and how she made a 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading simply by studying the Wall Street Journal. Even back then, Safire concluded, Clinton was “a congenital liar.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-who-tells-dreadful-lies/2016/09/19/cd38412e-7e6a-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html?utm_term=.675c686695f7
How many would you rank above us?
How many would you rank below us?
Is it any wonder they lost?
The EU does not have any military force projection worth the name and only one of its members - France - has a military which might be considered 'world class' - but its the French military, not the EUs.
We export more to the rest of the world than we do to the EU.
The EU exports more to us than we do to them.
Not bad for a 'middle ranking' country, nor too shoddy a negotiating position either....
Surely, as a PB regular you've got this by now?
Anyone trying to say GB is 'middle ranking' in Europe has an odd perception of what "about 2nd" means.
Newtonian physics works - in a limted fashion.