Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.
It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.
Indeed. They asked us what to do, and we said what to do. The government must now do it.
Frankly, anyone taking refuge in the phrase "advisory referendum" can safely be ignored.
Well, that is up to the courts to decide, isn't it?
It shouldn't be.
That's all part of our ancient democracy.
Look, there are two things that can happen.
Either the courts and Parliament uphold the referendum result, which would be a huge waste of time and money, or one of them overturns it, which would be a democratic disgrace.
May should shortcut the situation and just invoke A50 now.
The delay in invoking A50 is getting farcical, and the longer it goes on the more ridiculous it gets.
I agree. It is increasingly less obvious what the UK is achieving by delaying this. The EU is already having meetings without us. Our Commissioner has resigned and not been replaced. There is no chance of a comprehensive deal within 2 years anyway. As I said the other day we need to determine our priorities and get on with it.
I understand Philip Hammond is open-minded on staying in the customs union. But, to do this and technically leave the EU's political institutions, would probably be worse than leaving, and render the whole of Liam Fox's department pointless.
I don't see this as hard Brexit, it's the most basic of Brexits.
Yep, a lot of companies are going to be moving operations into the single market and a lot of investment and many jobs will move too.
My post referred to the customs union, not the single market.
Sure - but once we leave the customs union the EU has a right to impose duty on goods moving to and from the UK into the single market (and vice versa, of course). That will impose additional time and monetary costs on British businesses. The best way to avoid them is, as much as possible, to ensure that you continue to do your EU-related business from inside an EU member state.
But if you are looking to import goods into that single market you will always have to deal with the customs union of the EU. Whether you deal with that by goods imported directly from Japan for example or goods from the UK makes no difference.
The only complicating factor arises if the UK has special access to the EU such as no tariff deal. If that is the case then exports from the UK will need to show they were genuinely produced here and not just imported from Japan to avoid the tariffs that Japan pays. If we ended up on WTO rules, for example, this simply would not arise. If we have a free trade agreement it will but as Open Europe pointed out it is not a particularly big deal.
If you create the goods in the single market then you are in the single market and there is no problem. That was my original point. Investments and jobs that would have been created in a UK that was part of the single market will no longer occur in the UK, but in the EU.
Just like they would when we didn't join the euro.
I have finally worked out why the libdems are outperforming at local level and floundering at national level. Bitter or sad EU nationals are allowed to vote but not in General Elections. Theresa May should put this right as part of the Brexit agreement and rightly so.
Hardly! Turnout of EU nationals is even lower than UK nationals in local elections. It is not credible that 38% of the electorate in a ward in Cardiff are sudenly Polish, up 15% from previously.
That ward is a real mix of students, WWC, immigrants of first and second generation from Asia, European immigrants, and hipsters from my knowledge.
I don't think there's much argument here to be had, and that this is simply a bit of a legal distraction.
Parliament is consulted on the ratification of treaties due to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. This fairly recent and novel inclusion does not stretch AFAIK to the nullification of treaties, and therefore no precedent has been set.
At the same time, the point at which Parliament does need to be consulted, is at the point that a) The 1972 Act requires repeal (bit of a foregone conclusion) b) a new trade treaty is signed.
It is highly likely that the bulk of the trade issues might well be dealt with via continuing membership of the EEA, which then creates an interesting situation where the government could argue that as we are already signatories then no part of this area of the deal need reach parliament either: There would have been no change in that area.
I think that unlikely, but I also think that a 'Remainer' Parliament will be likely to vote for any EEA based settlement knowing that the alternative will be the Art 50 Guillotine.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
I understand Philip Hammond is open-minded on staying in the customs union. But, to do this and technically leave the EU's political institutions, would probably be worse than leaving, and render the whole of Liam Fox's department pointless.
I don't see this as hard Brexit, it's the most basic of Brexits.
Yep, a lot of companies are going to be moving operations into the single market and a lot of investment and many jobs will move too.
My post referred to the customs union, not the single market.
Sure - but once we leave the customs union the EU has a right to impose duty on goods moving to and from the UK into the single market (and vice versa, of course). That will impose additional time and monetary costs on British businesses. The best way to avoid them is, as much as possible, to ensure that you continue to do your EU-related business from inside an EU member state.
But if you are looking to import goods into that single market you will always have to deal with the customs union of the EU. Whether you deal with that by goods imported directly from Japan for example or goods from the UK makes no difference.
The only complicating factor arises if the UK has special access to the EU such as no tariff deal. If that is the case then exports from the UK will need to show they were genuinely produced here and not just imported from Japan to avoid the tariffs that Japan pays. If we ended up on WTO rules, for example, this simply would not arise. If we have a free trade agreement it will but as Open Europe pointed out it is not a particularly big deal.
If you create the goods in the single market then you are in the single market and there is no problem. That was my original point. Investments and jobs that would have been created in a UK that was part of the single market will no longer occur in the UK, but in the EU.
Not if we have a tariff free agreement with the EU as I think is likely. We will still have the cost of proving the origin of those goods and we may have to pay something on the imported parts but that would also be the case when those parts were imported into the EU anyway.
Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.
It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.
Indeed. They asked us what to do, and we said what to do. The government must now do it.
Frankly, anyone taking refuge in the phrase "advisory referendum" can safely be ignored.
Well, that is up to the courts to decide, isn't it?
It shouldn't be.
That's all part of our ancient democracy.
Look, there are two things that can happen.
Either the courts and Parliament uphold the referendum result, which would be a huge waste of time and money, or one of them overturns it, which would be a democratic disgrace.
May should shortcut the situation and just invoke A50 now.
The delay in invoking A50 is getting farcical, and the longer it goes on the more ridiculous it gets.
I agree. It is increasingly less obvious what the UK is achieving by delaying this. The EU is already having meetings without us. Our Commissioner has resigned and not been replaced. There is no chance of a comprehensive deal within 2 years anyway. As I said the other day we need to determine our priorities and get on with it.
Sir Julian King would argue otherwise, he took office the day before yesterday.
The legality collides with the politics. There's nothing stopping the Government putting Article 50 to Parliament and that's why it should do. It's simple. Government proposes; Parliament disposes.
The only reason Government doesn't want to do so is to stop Brexit being debated and its plan, or lack of one, discussed.
I have finally worked out why the libdems are outperforming at local level and floundering at national level. Bitter or sad EU nationals are allowed to vote but not in General Elections. Theresa May should put this right as part of the Brexit agreement and rightly so.
Hardly! Turnout of EU nationals is even lower than UK nationals in local elections. It is not credible that 38% of the electorate in a ward in Cardiff are sudenly Polish, up 15% from previously.
That ward is a real mix of students, WWC, immigrants of first and second generation from Asia, European immigrants, and hipsters from my knowledge.
Yes, I think students and hipsters are turning towards the LDs
They have short memories, with tuition fees around forever, a part of history now. They also like smoking dope...
The legality collides with the politics. There's nothing stopping the Government putting Article 50 to Parliament and that's why it should do. It's simple. Government proposes; Parliament disposes.
The only reason Government doesn't want to do so is to stop Brexit being debated and its plan, or lack of one, discussed.
Implying that an Article 50 vote is the only time to hold the government to account on the matter. Wasn't Davis in the chamber a few days ago?
I have finally worked out why the libdems are outperforming at local level and floundering at national level. Bitter or sad EU nationals are allowed to vote but not in General Elections. Theresa May should put this right as part of the Brexit agreement and rightly so.
Hardly! Turnout of EU nationals is even lower than UK nationals in local elections. It is not credible that 38% of the electorate in a ward in Cardiff are sudenly Polish, up 15% from previously.
That ward is a real mix of students, WWC, immigrants of first and second generation from Asia, European immigrants, and hipsters from my knowledge.
Yes, I think students and hipsters are turning towards the LDs
They have short memories, with tuition fees around forever, a part of history now. They also like smoking dope...
I have finally worked out why the libdems are outperforming at local level and floundering at national level. Bitter or sad EU nationals are allowed to vote but not in General Elections. Theresa May should put this right as part of the Brexit agreement and rightly so.
Hardly! Turnout of EU nationals is even lower than UK nationals in local elections. It is not credible that 38% of the electorate in a ward in Cardiff are sudenly Polish, up 15% from previously.
That ward is a real mix of students, WWC, immigrants of first and second generation from Asia, European immigrants, and hipsters from my knowledge.
Yes, I think students and hipsters are turning towards the LDs
They have short memories, with tuition fees around forever, a part of history now. They also like smoking dope...
.. and they like singing Tony Blair can fuck off and die?
On topic, I don't see a need for A50 to be put to the vote in Parliament. It might turn it into a political football and that would be a huge mistake for the political classes.
We voted, there was a result. Tezza should invoke as soon as she believes her ducks are in a row to be able to do so. I of course have less confidence in the three muppets given nominal responsibility for it all, but that's another discussion. Plus of course ain't nothing happening without Tezza's intimate involvement anyway so they are to a large extent for show.
I don't see this as hard Brexit, it's the most basic of Brexits.
Yep, a lot of companies are going to be moving operations into the single market and a lot of investment and many jobs will move too.
My post referred to the customs union, not the single market.
Sure - business from inside an EU member state.
But if you are looking to import goods into that single market you will always have to deal with the customs union of the EU. Whether you deal with that by goods imported directly from Japan for example or goods from the UK makes no difference.
The only complicating factor arises if the UK has special access to the EU such as no tariff deal. If that is the case then exports from the UK will need to show they were genuinely produced here and not just imported from Japan to avoid the tariffs that Japan pays. If we ended up on WTO rules, for example, this simply would not arise. If we have a free trade agreement it will but as Open Europe pointed out it is not a particularly big deal.
If you create the goods in the single market then you are in the single market and there is no problem. That was my original point. Investments and jobs that would have been created in a UK that was part of the single market will no longer occur in the UK, but in the EU.
Not if we have a tariff free agreement with the EU as I think is likely. We will still have the cost of proving the origin of those goods and we may have to pay something on the imported parts but that would also be the case when those parts were imported into the EU anyway.
It depends on the business. Service companies can avoid all costs by being in the single market. These are not only direct monetary ones, but time costs too. For us, it will make absolutely no sense to organise and run our European events from London anymore. We'll just do it form Barcelona or another city inside the single market. That means creating a conference business there - hiring staff, using local service providers etc - so less investment in the UK and less jobs in the UK. If you are a low margin, quick turnaround goods producer you may also have to think along similar lines.
Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy. The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy. The latter would mean accepting all regulations relating to the single market, without possessing any say on them, continuing with free movement of labour, and, probably, paying budget contributions. A country that has rejected membership is not going to accept so humiliating an alternative. It would be a state of dependence far worse than continued EU membership.
The only reasonable alternative to hard Brexit would be to stay inside the EU. Parliament is constitutionally entitled to ignore the vote result. The people could also be asked if they wanted to change their minds. But the Conservatives would surely follow Labour into ruin if they tried to reverse the outcome.
That is bollocks. Outside the EU we have more influence on the single market regulations.
This is because most of them are EU badged international standards.
At the moment we are represented by the EU at the international bodies that set those standards. If we leave, we will (like Norway) have our own seat.
In my own field, if we stayed part of the single market we would be obliged to implement all EU law relating to intellectual property that affected the single market, but we would have no say in how it was formulated or any representation in the courts that interpreted it. There would be no international body for us to join.
Overall more influence outside dosent mean there wont be losers alas - primarily in areas like your own where the EU makes the rules without reference toninternational rules and standards.
Although I think even here Norway in some ways have more influence. I will see if I can find the Barkworth article on it later. Going underground now.
The legality collides with the politics. There's nothing stopping the Government putting Article 50 to Parliament and that's why it should do. It's simple. Government proposes; Parliament disposes.
The only reason Government doesn't want to do so is to stop Brexit being debated and its plan, or lack of one, discussed.
The long parliamentary recess, leadership elections and now popcorn festival of the Labour and Conservative conferences, has been a distraction.
The government does want to keep Brexit away from Parliament so as not to expose the confusion, indecision and vacuity of its Brexit strategy. The risk of debating A50 in the Commons is that it makes Corbyn look competent in comparison.
May likes to dither, get bogged down in detail then have her way with no challenge.
Morning. I'm of the view that Parliament passed the legislation for the referendum, so delegating the decision on EU membership to the people.
What's concerning is that the people wanting Parliament to have have a say now, wish to do so only so Parliament - particularly the Lords - can overturn the voice of the People.
Do you have any proof to back up that outrageous claim?
Not outrageous at all. Paddy Pantsdown said as much on the day after the vote, that such important things shouldn't be for the people to decide and he hoped the sensible people in the Lords could reverse the decision.
On the contrary, does anyone who supported Leave now think that the decision of the People isn't enough?
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond is ready to accept that Britain may have to quit the single market — and U.K. financial firms’ unfettered access to EU clients — to deliver the restrictions on immigration demanded by voters in the June 23 Brexit referendum, according to two officials familiar with his thinking.
I have finally worked out why the libdems are outperforming at local level and floundering at national level. Bitter or sad EU nationals are allowed to vote but not in General Elections. Theresa May should put this right as part of the Brexit agreement and rightly so.
Hardly! Turnout of EU nationals is even lower than UK nationals in local elections. It is not credible that 38% of the electorate in a ward in Cardiff are sudenly Polish, up 15% from previously.
That ward is a real mix of students, WWC, immigrants of first and second generation from Asia, European immigrants, and hipsters from my knowledge.
Yes, I think students and hipsters are turning towards the LDs
They have short memories, with tuition fees around forever, a part of history now. They also like smoking dope...
.. and they like singing Tony Blair can fuck off and die?
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
Not fair. Mrs Snodgrass painting her dahlias is as much of an artist as Carl Andre.
But a discussion about modern art on PB with some of the, um, more intellectually closed minded on here, apart from being hugely (and I mean hugely) entertaining, would be an enormous waste of time.
For those feeling a void in their lives after the Olympics and the Paralympics, fear not - we now have pb.com hosting the World Straw-clutching Championships...
June saw the outcome of a political decision previously included in the 2015 Conservative Manifesto - an outcome the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were determined you should not have - and the resulting Conservative majority Government enabled the Referendum to be held. The Establishment threw everything it had at staying in the EU, including a wodge of taxpayer money and the careers of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. That the Establishment chose to have the vote in June shortly AFTER announcing the immigration numbers that sank them was their damned fool fault - they chose the timing and could have held it in early May. But why should they worry? They were sat with four aces.
Four shiny aces. Face up on the table.
And then the voters flipped over their cards. Hah! The best they had was a six! A six!! And a five. A four. A three.
And a two.
Of the same suit.
What do you mean, that beats four aces? WE HAVE FOUR ACES! WE HAVE THE FOUR TOP CARDS!! That MUST win??
Yep, the little guys had the little cards. But they had a winning hand.
And I haven't heard of a single Tory MP who still believes their four aces is a winning hand. (And if they did, they should expect a tap on the shoulder from their Constituency Chair....) The basic truth of June is that our politicians found they were wearing a choke-chain. And in June, for the first time since our European adventure began in 1973, that choke-chain got pulled. Sharply.
I have finally worked out why the libdems are outperforming at local level and floundering at national level. Bitter or sad EU nationals are allowed to vote but not in General Elections. Theresa May should put this right as part of the Brexit agreement and rightly so.
Hardly! Turnout of EU nationals is even lower than UK nationals in local elections. It is not credible that 38% of the electorate in a ward in Cardiff are sudenly Polish, up 15% from previously.
That ward is a real mix of students, WWC, immigrants of first and second generation from Asia, European immigrants, and hipsters from my knowledge.
Yes, I think students and hipsters are turning towards the LDs
They have short memories, with tuition fees around forever, a part of history now. They also like smoking dope...
.. and they like singing Tony Blair can fuck off and die?
Surely something that we can all endorse!
Only the first part.......tho the news that he's winding down his business has me wondering whether he envisions some sort of return to politics......'saviour of the UK from a BREXIT disaster...?'
Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond is ready to accept that Britain may have to quit the single market — and U.K. financial firms’ unfettered access to EU clients — to deliver the restrictions on immigration demanded by voters in the June 23 Brexit referendum, according to two officials familiar with his thinking.
Of course. It should be no surprise. The only unknown is how much if at all the EU caves on immigration in the actual negotiations. Rhetoric to date suggests not much; realpolitik suggests perhaps a bit.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
Not fair. Mrs Snodgrass painting her dahlias is as much of an artist as Carl Andre.
But a discussion about modern art on PB with some of the, um, more intellectually closed minded on here, apart from being hugely (and I mean hugely) entertaining, would be an enormous waste of time.
It is worth pointing out that as well as being hugely entertaining to the rest of us, the hipsters of Clerkenwell with their art, design and creativity are a successful British industry, alongside popular music.
In Brexiteer world, nothing modern is worth anything.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond is ready to accept that Britain may have to quit the single market — and U.K. financial firms’ unfettered access to EU clients — to deliver the restrictions on immigration demanded by voters in the June 23 Brexit referendum, according to two officials familiar with his thinking.
The surprise is that Hammond now sees it too - must be humiliating for the Treasury Mandarins to have to toe the Downing St Line after the years of the Osborne Supremacy....
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
Not fair. Mrs Snodgrass painting her dahlias is as much of an artist as Carl Andre.
But a discussion about modern art on PB with some of the, um, more intellectually closed minded on here, apart from being hugely (and I mean hugely) entertaining, would be an enormous waste of time.
It is worth pointing out that as well as being hugely entertaining to the rest of us, the hipsters of Clerkenwell with their art, design and creativity are a successful British industry, alongside popular music.
In Brexiteer world, nothing modern is worth anything.
Seems we are also hosting the World Generalisation Games.....
"If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate. "
Count me among the enthusiastic philistines. Tinned turd? Yes, that's challenging. OMG, the stunning insight.
We could do a double-blind trial, the "real art" against the random rubbish. See what the p-value is.
I still believe it's a giant piss-take (as opposed to a turd-take). Come on, Foxy, admit it. I'll admit you had me fooled for a while.
"If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate. "
Count me among the enthusiastic philistines. Tinned turd? Yes, that's challenging. OMG, the stunning insight.
We could do a double-blind trial, the "real art" against the random rubbish. See what the p-value is.
I still believe it's a giant piss-take (as opposed to a turd-take). Come on, Foxy, admit it. I'll admit you had me fooled for a while.
you are either trolling reasonably amusingly or you really are an idiot.
For those feeling a void in their lives after the Olympics and the Paralympics, fear not - we now have pb.com hosting the World Straw-clutching Championships...
June saw the outcome of a political decision previously included in the 2015 Conservative Manifesto - an outcome the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were determined you should not have - and the resulting Conservative majority Government enabled the Referendum to be held. The Establishment threw everything it had at staying in the EU, including a wodge of taxpayer money and the careers of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. That the Establishment chose to have the vote in June shortly AFTER announcing the immigration numbers that sank them was their damned fool fault - they chose the timing and could have held it in early May. But why should they worry? They were sat with four aces.
Four shiny aces. Face up on the table.
And then the voters flipped over their cards. Hah! The best they had was a six! A six!! And a five. A four. A three.
And a two.
Of the same suit.
What do you mean, that beats four aces? WE HAVE FOUR ACES! WE HAVE THE FOUR TOP CARDS!! That MUST win??
Yep, the little guys had the little cards. But they had a winning hand.
And I haven't heard of a single Tory MP who still believes their four aces is a winning hand. (And if they did, they should expect a tap on the shoulder from their Constituency Chair....) The basic truth of June is that our politicians found they were wearing a choke-chain. And in June, for the first time since our European adventure began in 1973, that choke-chain got pulled. Sharply.
Yep - the Establishment really has been put in its place. :-D
I have finally worked out why the libdems are outperforming at local level and floundering at national level. Bitter or sad EU nationals are allowed to vote but not in General Elections. Theresa May should put this right as part of the Brexit agreement and rightly so.
Hardly! Turnout of EU nationals is even lower than UK nationals in local elections. It is not credible that 38% of the electorate in a ward in Cardiff are sudenly Polish, up 15% from previously.
That ward is a real mix of students, WWC, immigrants of first and second generation from Asia, European immigrants, and hipsters from my knowledge.
Yes, I think students and hipsters are turning towards the LDs
They have short memories, with tuition fees around forever, a part of history now. They also like smoking dope...
.. and they like singing Tony Blair can fuck off and die?
Surely something that we can all endorse!
Only the first part.......tho the news that he's winding down his business has me wondering whether he envisions some sort of return to politics......'saviour of the UK from a BREXIT disaster...?'
Imagine the Corbynistas if TB announces a return to UK politics? They'd need multiple safe spaces to hide in.
The Cunctator (Quintus Fabius Maximus) was a man of great military insight and unyielding moral virtue. He also disagreed with almost all the political class and acted in what he deemed was Rome's best interests (despite the moaning of the Senators).
"If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate. "
Count me among the enthusiastic philistines. Tinned turd? Yes, that's challenging. OMG, the stunning insight.
We could do a double-blind trial, the "real art" against the random rubbish. See what the p-value is.
I still believe it's a giant piss-take (as opposed to a turd-take). Come on, Foxy, admit it. I'll admit you had me fooled for a while.
See the unmitigated crap at the Tate Modern then read what the experts gush about it. Look no further as to why experts are not trusted.
The Tate Modern is actually worth a vist to look at the inside of the rather splendid power station conversion, free entry too - but dont make it a long visit as the execrations inside and the fools taking them seriously get too much.
For those feeling a void in their lives after the Olympics and the Paralympics, fear not - we now have pb.com hosting the World Straw-clutching Championships...
June saw the outcome of a political decision previously included in the 2015 Conservative Manifesto - an outcome the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were determined you should not have - and the resulting Conservative majority Government enabled the Referendum to be held. The Establishment threw everything it had at staying in the EU, including a wodge of taxpayer money and the careers of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. That the Establishment chose to have the vote in June shortly AFTER announcing the immigration numbers that sank them was their damned fool fault - they chose the timing and could have held it in early May. But why should they worry? They were sat with four aces.
Four shiny aces. Face up on the table.
And then the voters flipped over their cards. Hah! The best they had was a six! A six!! And a five. A four. A three.
And a two.
Of the same suit.
What do you mean, that beats four aces? WE HAVE FOUR ACES! WE HAVE THE FOUR TOP CARDS!! That MUST win??
Yep, the little guys had the little cards. But they had a winning hand.
And I haven't heard of a single Tory MP who still believes their four aces is a winning hand. (And if they did, they should expect a tap on the shoulder from their Constituency Chair....) The basic truth of June is that our politicians found they were wearing a choke-chain. And in June, for the first time since our European adventure began in 1973, that choke-chain got pulled. Sharply.
Yep - the Establishment really has been put in its place. :-D
Moral of the story: don't play poker with the voters. They always hold the best hand,
Even if Parliament is asked to approve it the Tories have a majority in the Commons and Corbyn is likely to order his MPs to vote it through in respect of the will of the people, it will only be some Labour rebels, the LDs and SNP who try and delay it. The Lords may be more difficult but even there they can only delay it for a year or so
For those feeling a void in their lives after the Olympics and the Paralympics, fear not - we now have pb.com hosting the World Straw-clutching Championships...
June saw the outcome of a political decision previously included in the 2015 Conservative Manifesto - an outcome the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were determined you should not have - and the resulting Conservative majority Government enabled the Referendum to be held. The Establishment threw everything it had at staying in the EU, including a wodge of taxpayer money and the careers of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. That the Establishment chose to have the vote in June shortly AFTER announcing the immigration numbers that sank them was their damned fool fault - they chose the timing and could have held it in early May. But why should they worry? They were sat with four aces.
Four shiny aces. Face up on the table.
And then the voters flipped over their cards. Hah! The best they had was a six! A six!! And a five. A four. A three.
And a two.
Of the same suit.
What do you mean, that beats four aces? WE HAVE FOUR ACES! WE HAVE THE FOUR TOP CARDS!! That MUST win??
Yep, the little guys had the little cards. But they had a winning hand.
And I haven't heard of a single Tory MP who still believes their four aces is a winning hand. (And if they did, they should expect a tap on the shoulder from their Constituency Chair....) The basic truth of June is that our politicians found they were wearing a choke-chain. And in June, for the first time since our European adventure began in 1973, that choke-chain got pulled. Sharply.
Yep - the Establishment really has been put in its place. :-D
Moral of the story: don't play poker with the voters. They always hold the best hand,
You are rather proving my point. Subjective views may differ and I will tease you for yours. But that doesn't make you an idiot. Misguided? That's the nature of subjective views.
If we ran a double-blind trial, do you believe you could identify your "art" against a selection of random objects. Could you explain why it's art? Or is it a metaphysical thing that I'm not privy to?
Even if Parliament is asked to approve it the Tories have a majority in the Commons and Corbyn is likely to order his MPs to vote it through in respect of the will of the people, it will only be some Labour rebels, the LDs and SNP who try and delay it. The Lords may be more difficult but even there they can only delay it for a year or so
Precisely. It's not as if A50 will not be invoked when the government asks Parliament to do so. I doubt the Lords would hold things up either.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
Give someone a can of pickled dogshit and they'll throw it away, tell them Damien Hurst made it and they'll stick it in a gallery. There are some modern art pieces that are interesting or thought provoking, but overall it's just chancers trying to get away with selling last night's leftovers.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
I think I'd prefer the pretty pictures. The problem with the Tate bricks etc. is that it turns art into something that can only be appreciated by a handful of experts. It's similar to the view that literature is not meant to enjoyed by the masses.
For those feeling a void in their lives after the Olympics and the Paralympics, fear not - we now have pb.com hosting the World Straw-clutching Championships...
June saw the outcome of a political decision previously included in the 2015 Conservative Manifesto - an outcome the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were determined you should not have - and the resulting Conservative majority Government enabled the Referendum to be held. The Establishment threw everything it had at staying in the EU, including a wodge of taxpayer money and the careers of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. That the Establishment chose to have the vote in June shortly AFTER announcing the immigration numbers that sank them was their damned fool fault - they chose the timing and could have held it in early May. But why should they worry? They were sat with four aces.
Four shiny aces. Face up on the table.
And then the voters flipped over their cards. Hah! The best they had was a six! A six!! And a five. A four. A three.
And a two.
Of the same suit.
What do you mean, that beats four aces? WE HAVE FOUR ACES! WE HAVE THE FOUR TOP CARDS!! That MUST win??
Yep, the little guys had the little cards. But they had a winning hand.
And I haven't heard of a single Tory MP who still believes their four aces is a winning hand. (And if they did, they should expect a tap on the shoulder from their Constituency Chair....) The basic truth of June is that our politicians found they were wearing a choke-chain. And in June, for the first time since our European adventure began in 1973, that choke-chain got pulled. Sharply.
Yep - the Establishment really has been put in its place. :-D
Moral of the story: don't play poker with the voters. They always hold the best hand,
No, they don't. Some of them do.
Wrong. In a referendum, they all do. A point singularly lost on an Establishment used to safe seats....
"If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate. "
Count me among the enthusiastic philistines. Tinned turd? Yes, that's challenging. OMG, the stunning insight.
We could do a double-blind trial, the "real art" against the random rubbish. See what the p-value is.
I still believe it's a giant piss-take (as opposed to a turd-take). Come on, Foxy, admit it. I'll admit you had me fooled for a while.
As probably one of the few on here with an Art History biased academic background - I just look on and wonder.
Some modernish art is quite lovely for many reasons. There's one work that captured me from across the room and was gorgeous in its composition. 95% of it IMO self indulgent cobblers lauded by those who want to impress their pseudish friends.
The referendum result needs to be respected. It sets a very dangerous precedent if it isn't. Given that, it's all a bit of a red herring giving parliament a vote on A50. If they voted anything other than to trigger it there would be uproar. delaying tactics etc are just going to further sour relations with the Eu and create more uncertainty so I see no appeal there. 2017 A50, 2019 we leave, 2020 GE where competing parties can present their visions for new relationship with EU (stick with TMs deal, rejoin single market, scrap all deals etc).
I'm a millennial europhile remainer living in France and I've accepted the result and have no desire for 2nd referendums/ parliament vetoes, etc - so I'm sure the vast majority of remainers are in the same boat. Let's just get on with it at this point.
You are rather proving my point. Subjective views may differ and I will tease you for yours. But that doesn't make you an idiot. Misguided? That's the nature of subjective views.
If we ran a double-blind trial, do you believe you could identify your "art" against a selection of random objects. Could you explain why it's art? Or is it a metaphysical thing that I'm not privy to?
Oh, and have a good day.
you didn't answer my question about War and Peace. So I'll give you the shorthand version of the answer. Of course the first point to make is that if someone says something is art, then it is art. It just is.
So also, War and Peace is a work of art. I think we should all be able to agree on that. But it is written in a special language, Russian in this case. Hence, if a non-Russian speaker is to read and enjoy the book, they will need it to be translated. Into English, say.
Look at modern art in the same way. It uses a vocabulary that many people don't understand. Geometric patterns, found objects, installations, etc. And why should they? There is no innate sense which lets you interpret one of, say, Mondrian's intersecting line paintings.
So just because you don't understand a work of art, for the entirely understandable reason that you don't know its vocabulary...doesn't mean it is not a work of art. You are in effect saying that if you give an English speaker two books, one in English and one in Russian, he can legitimately say that only the one written in English is art.
Whether modern art is all good or bad is of course a separate issue.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
I think I'd prefer the pretty pictures. The problem with the Tate bricks etc. is that it turns art into something that only be appreciated by a handful of experts. It's similar to the view that literature is not meant to enjoyed by the masses.
If Tracey Emin's Bed had to be saved for the nation by public subscription limited to a maximum donation of say £10 each, I do wonder how much would be raised for this most iconic work....
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
Britain is the one guest in the gallery who loudly points out how silly the art is. The 27 others in the room shuffle their feet and stare at the floor, unable to formulate a reply.
On modern art - I'm happy that Banksy's stuff has a value, indeed I have lent money against it. I wouldn't take Tracey Emin's bed as security, that is real emperor's new clothes crap.
"If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate. "
Count me among the enthusiastic philistines. Tinned turd? Yes, that's challenging. OMG, the stunning insight.
We could do a double-blind trial, the "real art" against the random rubbish. See what the p-value is.
I still believe it's a giant piss-take (as opposed to a turd-take). Come on, Foxy, admit it. I'll admit you had me fooled for a while.
As probably one of the few on here with an Art History biased academic background - I just look on and wonder.
Some modernish art is quite lovely for many reasons. There's one work that captured me from across the room and was gorgeous in its composition. 95% of it IMO self indulgent cobblers lauded by those who want to impress their pseudish friends.
I would love some of the PB modern art experts to explain why Blinky Palermo's Untitled is worth $1.6m or Murakami's My Lonesome Cowboy is worth $15m. There is plenty of good modern art but there is also plenty of absolute crap which is hyped by pretentious tossers.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
On modern art - I'm happy that Banksy's stuff has a value, indeed I have lent money against it. I wouldn't take Tracey Emin's bed as security, that is real emperor's new clothes crap.
Even with Banksy, put his work on a canvas instead of a brick wall and you've got normal art.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Part 1 I've really tried to stay out of this, but I have to agree with southam on this. For all that there are remainers out there who might dream of using this to delay or even prevent Brexit, politically there seems no path to that so we can set that aside and focus on the question of who has the legal authority to trigger a50. It will be triggered and we will leave, the commons has the votes to push it through if needs be, it's a question of process.
Now, few here are lawyers and fewer still are going to be experts on matters or arcane consituational theory, so I come at it from a position of reasonableness and known facts. It strikes me that many of my fellow leavers, despite their confident protestations of Brexit is Brexit, seem paranoid about it not happening, or else why get so worried by parliament rubber stamping the triggering? Courts are entitled to be asked these questions, and no matter how many times we point to our side winning 52 48 the people are not legally sovereign is my understanding. Yes, practical considerations make enacting the popular will very clearly the only option here, but since when did that mean power was delegated to them? That was one of the claims of some euros to suggest we'd already triggered a50 and it is simply factually wrong as I understand it.
Our system of checks and balances and where referenda fit in and what the executive can do with the royal prerogative is all a bit of a muddle. That is very very British of us. The muddle needs to be untangled and government assurance isn't enough to untangle it, governments are wrong a lot. Many people seem to wish we lived in a much simpler system, where the people's will means arcane questions like this are irrelevant.
Well we don't and they aren't. And since Brexit is in no danger in practice in all but the fevered dreams of a few, it seems right that whatever the motivation of those who asked the question, the question should be settled. If the government is right, well that makes things simpler. If it is wrong, I would suggest that parliament woukd still trigger things, and there are advantages to putting them collectively on the spot to do so. So where is the harm if the courts rule they must? Worst case scenario the parliament refuses to trigger it and that will trigger a general election for sure, no way the government survives that, and angry brexiteers will surely be more represented afterwards and a new vote taken.
On modern art - I'm happy that Banksy's stuff has a value, indeed I have lent money against it. I wouldn't take Tracey Emin's bed as security, that is real emperor's new clothes crap.
Even with Banksy, put his work on a canvas instead of a brick wall and you've got normal art.
There has to be alot of self publicising to make it as an artist, especially these days - but I still think the art itself has to have some value. Banksy and Dali are two good examples of excellent self publicists and original artists.
Since Brexit is Brexit, I am comfortable settling all legal questions as much as is practicable. What I find more uncomfortable than sone bitter remainers seeking in vain to frustrate matters is claims the referendum granted power where it did not, on questions of process it has no impact on, and dismissal of the British tradition of fudging a solution to this because a referendum result for some reason means people are not allowed to question process anymore.
People on both sides are ignoring what the court is being asked to clarify in favour of arguments they would prefer to have, reframing it into questions of ignoring the referendum, which politically will never happen so no matter if legal, or by pretending, in this instance, constitutional questions are unimportant because...well I don't know. Leave has won, this is just a process question, calm the heck down.
"If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate. "
Count me among the enthusiastic philistines. Tinned turd? Yes, that's challenging. OMG, the stunning insight.
We could do a double-blind trial, the "real art" against the random rubbish. See what the p-value is.
I still believe it's a giant piss-take (as opposed to a turd-take). Come on, Foxy, admit it. I'll admit you had me fooled for a while.
See the unmitigated crap at the Tate Modern then read what the experts gush about it. Look no further as to why experts are not trusted.
The Tate Modern is actually worth a vist to look at the inside of the rather splendid power station conversion, free entry too - but dont make it a long visit as the execrations inside and the fools taking them seriously get too much.
The Armstrong and Miller sketch, as Brabbyns and Fyffe (Flanders and Swann): Brabbyns (addressing audience): contrary to appearances, young Fyffe here is actually quite cultured. Fyffe: Yes, we've just had the most edifying conversation about the nature of art. Brabbyns: You see -- a conversation!
While I remain open to the suggestion that Damian Hirst is just a graphic designer who got lucky, once you start complaining about art, where do you stop? If you want to know what sunflowers look like, there are better photos in a seed catalogue than Van Gogh ever managed.
On modern art - I'm happy that Banksy's stuff has a value, indeed I have lent money against it. I wouldn't take Tracey Emin's bed as security, that is real emperor's new clothes crap.
Consumer Jesus, Morons and Napalm are quite interesting prints. However, the prices for prints which are not that rare have got quite silly.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
snip
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
I think I'd prefer the pretty pictures. The problem with the Tate bricks etc. is that it turns art into something that only be appreciated by a handful of experts. It's similar to the view that literature is not meant to enjoyed by the masses.
If Tracey Emin's Bed had to be saved for the nation by public subscription limited to a maximum donation of say £10 each, I do wonder how much would be raised for this most iconic work....
Where I find modern art so lacking is that it rarely says much at all - it's faddy and pseudish. It's become some esoteric clique filled with Guardian reading Lefties. The more absurd it is - the more feted it becomes.
In times before, it was a profession - with apprenticeships, workshops churning product out 'School of XYZ' and packed with clever allusions, political commentary and witty allegories. There was of course an industry for sucking-up portraiture for the aristos or religious big wigs too.
I find modern stuff such vacuous attention seeking Pot Noodle.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
On modern art - I'm happy that Banksy's stuff has a value, indeed I have lent money against it. I wouldn't take Tracey Emin's bed as security, that is real emperor's new clothes crap.
Even with Banksy, put his work on a canvas instead of a brick wall and you've got normal art.
There has to be alot of self publicising to make it as an artist, especially these days - but I still think the art itself has to have some value. Banksy and Dali are two good examples of excellent self publicists and original artists.
Yes, absolutely agreed. That comment wasn't meant as a slight on Banksy, just pointing out that the work itself is pretty standard, the setting is different.
Even if Parliament is asked to approve it the Tories have a majority in the Commons and Corbyn is likely to order his MPs to vote it through in respect of the will of the people, it will only be some Labour rebels, the LDs and SNP who try and delay it. The Lords may be more difficult but even there they can only delay it for a year or so
Precisely. It's not as if A50 will not be invoked when the government asks Parliament to do so. I doubt the Lords would hold things up either.
Indeed, of course the more the Lords tried the more the public would start to look again at elections for the upper house
On modern art - I'm happy that Banksy's stuff has a value, indeed I have lent money against it. I wouldn't take Tracey Emin's bed as security, that is real emperor's new clothes crap.
I'd agree - he's got a personal brand of mystery, big statements, well executed and easily understandable. It's' professional graffiti that's popular with a wide audience.
Part 1 Now, few here are lawyers and fewer still are going to be experts on matters or arcane consituational theory, so I come at it from a position of reasonableness and known facts. It strikes me that many of my fellow leavers, despite their confident protestations of Brexit is Brexit, seem paranoid about it not happening, or else why get so worried by parliament rubber stamping the triggering?
It's not paranoia if they're out to get you. We've had Owen Smith campaigning to keep us in the EU, we had Tim Farron yesterday wanting some kind of second referendum.
It's pretty clear that 'some' politicians would seek to keep us in the EU.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
I think I'd prefer the pretty pictures. The problem with the Tate bricks etc. is that it turns art into something that can only be appreciated by a handful of experts. It's similar to the view that literature is not meant to enjoyed by the masses.
It would be fine if such art were accompanied by some explanatory notes explaining the purpose and intent, and where one can find out more of the style/genre/story.
But too often the experts believe that educating the plebs is beneath them, and prefer to sneer.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
snip
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
I think I'd prefer the pretty pictures. The .
If Tracey Emin's Bed had to be saved for the nation by public subscription limited to a maximum donation of say £10 each, I do wonder how much would be raised for this most iconic work....
Where I find modern art so lacking is that it rarely says much at all - it's faddy and pseudish. It's become some esoteric clique filled with Guardian reading Lefties. The more absurd it is - the more feted it becomes.
In times before, it was a profession - with apprenticeships, workshops churning product out 'School of XYZ' and packed with clever allusions, political commentary and witty allegories. There was of course an industry for sucking-up portraiture for the aristos or religious big wigs too.
I find modern stuff such vacuous attention seeking Pot Noodle.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
No. And neither had the EU.
I have to disagree with you and Max on this. If the altered question had been: "Has the EU kept the peace in Europe for 70 years", then I would have agreed with you - the EU has not kept the peace.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
So IMO the EU has *helped* keep the peace, but it was far from the only factor in that peace.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need to put to bed and replaced with newer mills with on demand local energy.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
I think I'd prefer the pretty pictures. The problem with the Tate bricks etc. is that it turns art into something that can only be appreciated by a handful of experts. It's similar to the view that literature is not meant to enjoyed by the masses.
It would be fine if such art were accompanied by some explanatory notes explaining the purpose and intent, and where one can find out more of the style/genre/story.
But too often the experts believe that educating the plebs is beneath them, and prefer to sneer.
Someone above bemoaned the fact that some "experts" had indeed explained the art and it was all bolleaux. Trouble with explaining art is that it can be complicated and often involves concepts which are not intuitive.
The museums do try - look at the big explanatory posters at the entrance to most galleries, or read the catalogue.
On modern art - I'm happy that Banksy's stuff has a value, indeed I have lent money against it. I wouldn't take Tracey Emin's bed as security, that is real emperor's new clothes crap.
Even with Banksy, put his work on a canvas instead of a brick wall and you've got normal art.
There has to be alot of self publicising to make it as an artist, especially these days - but I still think the art itself has to have some value. Banksy and Dali are two good examples of excellent self publicists and original artists.
Dali walking his pet platypus around London is one of my favourites. For anyone who hasn't seen a Dali in the flesh - they're incredible. And tiny. Most works are less than a foot square - yet the execution is immensely detailed/precise. Imagine a canvas 3ft across reduced to 12".
This would fit in an average laptop bag. And even standing inches away from it - I still can't get over the brushwork precision, it's stunning.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
No. And neither had the EU.
I have to disagree with you and Max on this. If the altered question had been: "Has the EU kept the peace in Europe for 70 years", then I would have agreed with you - the EU has not kept the peace.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
So IMO the EU has *helped* keep the peace, but it was far from the only factor in that peace.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
The main factors in keeping the peace was the lack of appetite for war, the lack of readily available infantry and eventually NATO to keep the Russians in check. If the EU/ECSC helped keep the peace, then it was a decidedly minor role that the EUphiles and Eurocrats have turned into something far more important than it really was with bluster and misinformation.
I think I'd prefer the pretty pictures. The problem with the Tate bricks etc. is that it turns art into something that can only be appreciated by a handful of experts. It's similar to the view that literature is not meant to enjoyed by the masses.
It would be fine if such art were accompanied by some explanatory notes explaining the purpose and intent, and where one can find out more of the style/genre/story.
But too often the experts believe that educating the plebs is beneath them, and prefer to sneer.
Many years ago I went around the Tate Modern with my parents and then-girlfriend. In a few hours I found only one thing that caught my interest: a map of Britain with placenames (and I think roads) exchanged.
As we left, my GF asked my dad what he thought if it. He said at the top of his voice: "It's all a load of sh*t."
Though it's worth it for the building: Bankside is a glorious piece of architecture. So much better than Battersea.
Part 1 Now, few here are lawyers and fewer still are going to be experts on matters or arcane consituational theory, so I come at it from a position of reasonableness and known facts. It strikes me that many of my fellow leavers, despite their confident protestations of Brexit is Brexit, seem paranoid about it not happening, or else why get so worried by parliament rubber stamping the triggering?
It's not paranoia if they're out to get you. We've had Owen Smith campaigning to keep us in the EU, we had Tim Farron yesterday wanting some kind of second referendum.
It's pretty clear that 'some' politicians would seek to keep us in the EU.
It's paranoia to think they would succeed. Smith was grandstanding.
I think I'd prefer the pretty pictures. The problem with the Tate bricks etc. is that it turns art into something that can only be appreciated by a handful of experts. It's similar to the view that literature is not meant to enjoyed by the masses.
It would be fine if such art were accompanied by some explanatory notes explaining the purpose and intent, and where one can find out more of the style/genre/story.
But too often the experts believe that educating the plebs is beneath them, and prefer to sneer.
Many years ago I went around the Tate Modern with my parents and then-girlfriend. In a few hours I found only one thing that caught my interest: a map of Britain with placenames (and I think roads) exchanged.
As we left, my GF asked my dad what he thought if it. He said at the top of his voice: "It's all a load of sh*t."
Though it's worth it for the building: Bankside is a glorious piece of architecture. So much better than Battersea.
Philistine! Battersea had a beautiful marble interior as well as its iconic chimneys.
The Commons might vote either way. I think the Lords likelier to vote for us to stay in.
A minority of Remain supporters are trying to ignore and override the referendum's result.
The key word there is minority. That the minority are trying such a thing does not render questions of process irrelevant or an outrage, even if that minority woukd love to use such a question as a proxy for remaining.
I work in an area where questions of process arise all the time. Like planning applications, the questions are usually raised by people who are vehemently opposed and looking for ways to obstruct. But that doesn't mean sometimes they cannot identify a point worth raising. And notably, usually it doesn't prevent the outcome they didn't want in the end, and theyve just helped make it a more solid decision, frustrating though it was set the time.
Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.
From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.
1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.
2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.
The second only flies of the referendum was agreed as binding. Which it could have been (as was AV, as I recall). But this one wasn't. If Parliament agrees a referendum as advisory it must leave open the possibility - in theory if not in practice - that the result can be disregarded.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
I think the art critics (on either side) are rather missing the point. Most art is mundane crap - and always has been. It's just that the crap tends not to survive over a long period of time, and of course that people have the ability to create a great deal more junk than has ever been possible historically.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
No. And neither had the EU.
I have to disagree with you and Max on this. If the altered question had been: "Has the EU kept the peace in Europe for 70 years", then I would have agreed with you - the EU has not kept the peace.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
So IMO the EU has *helped* keep the peace, but it was far from the only factor in that peace.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
The main factors in keeping the peace was the lack of appetite for war, the lack of readily available infantry and eventually NATO to keep the Russians in check. If the EU/ECSC helped keep the peace, then it was a decidedly minor role that the EUphiles and Eurocrats have turned into something far more important than it really was with bluster and misinformation.
I think that's closer to the truth, but I still think it deserves more praise than that. It was another avenue through which disagreements could be solved, and made the consequences of disagreements much greater. I'd put it on the same level as NATO in that respect.
It was nowhere near as important as Europhiles like to make out, but much more important that the Europhobes think.
I have finally worked out why the libdems are outperforming at local level and floundering at national level. Bitter or sad EU nationals are allowed to vote but not in General Elections. Theresa May should put this right as part of the Brexit agreement and rightly so.
Hardly! Turnout of EU nationals is even lower than UK nationals in local elections. It is not credible that 38% of the electorate in a ward in Cardiff are sudenly Polish, up 15% from previously.
That ward is a real mix of students, WWC, immigrants of first and second generation from Asia, European immigrants, and hipsters from my knowledge.
More to the point, when I have been polled, both online and by phone, I don't recall anyone actually asking in which elections I was entitled to vote.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
snip
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
I think I'd prefer the pretty pictures. The problem with the Tate bricks etc. is that it turns art into something that can only be appreciated by a handful of experts. It's similar to the view that literature is not meant to enjoyed by the masses.
It would be fine if such art were accompanied by some explanatory notes explaining the purpose and intent, and where one can find out more of the style/genre/story.
But too often the experts believe that educating the plebs is beneath them, and prefer to sneer.
For anyone interested in how journeyman artists plied their trades and when art was a trade - this book is excellent reading. No arty farty - just history and explanations what all manner of painting subjects mean.
This review is spot on
"As well as being a splendid introduction to the paintings and the philosophy behind them, this book is particularly good on the relationship between the artists and their rich patrons, and between the artists and their materials. It's full of intriguing details. Why, for example, pure blue is so rare as well as so rich -- at this period, all the lapis lazuli that European painters could use was mined from one mine (somewhere in Afghanistan) and imported solely through Venice... So it's no surprise to see patrons putting clauses in their contracts with their artists: "use the best blue at 4 ducats the ounce; don't try palming me off with any 2-ducat rubbish!" If this is the sort of thing that makes you go "yippee!" and grin, as the past comes alive for you, then this is definitely the book for you.
Comments
Parliament is consulted on the ratification of treaties due to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. This fairly recent and novel inclusion does not stretch AFAIK to the nullification of treaties, and therefore no precedent has been set.
At the same time, the point at which Parliament does need to be consulted, is at the point that
a) The 1972 Act requires repeal (bit of a foregone conclusion)
b) a new trade treaty is signed.
It is highly likely that the bulk of the trade issues might well be dealt with via continuing membership of the EEA, which then creates an interesting situation where the government could argue that as we are already signatories then no part of this area of the deal need reach parliament either: There would have been no change in that area.
I think that unlikely, but I also think that a 'Remainer' Parliament will be likely to vote for any EEA based settlement knowing that the alternative will be the Art 50 Guillotine.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
The only reason Government doesn't want to do so is to stop Brexit being debated and its plan, or lack of one, discussed.
They have short memories, with tuition fees around forever, a part of history now. They also like smoking dope...
We voted, there was a result. Tezza should invoke as soon as she believes her ducks are in a row to be able to do so. I of course have less confidence in the three muppets given nominal responsibility for it all, but that's another discussion. Plus of course ain't nothing happening without Tezza's intimate involvement anyway so they are to a large extent for show.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/10/the-three-brexiteers-are-overlooking-a-crucial-detail-on-trade/
The government does want to keep Brexit away from Parliament so as not to expose the confusion, indecision and vacuity of its Brexit strategy. The risk of debating A50 in the Commons is that it makes Corbyn look competent in comparison.
May likes to dither, get bogged down in detail then have her way with no challenge.
On the contrary, does anyone who supported Leave now think that the decision of the People isn't enough?
Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond is ready to accept that Britain may have to quit the single market — and U.K. financial firms’ unfettered access to EU clients — to deliver the restrictions on immigration demanded by voters in the June 23 Brexit referendum, according to two officials familiar with his thinking.
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/brexit-backer-says-bank-freedom-starts-by-embracing-eu-rules/
But a discussion about modern art on PB with some of the, um, more intellectually closed minded on here, apart from being hugely (and I mean hugely) entertaining, would be an enormous waste of time.
June saw the outcome of a political decision previously included in the 2015 Conservative Manifesto - an outcome the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were determined you should not have - and the resulting Conservative majority Government enabled the Referendum to be held. The Establishment threw everything it had at staying in the EU, including a wodge of taxpayer money and the careers of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. That the Establishment chose to have the vote in June shortly AFTER announcing the immigration numbers that sank them was their damned fool fault - they chose the timing and could have held it in early May. But why should they worry? They were sat with four aces.
Four shiny aces. Face up on the table.
And then the voters flipped over their cards. Hah! The best they had was a six! A six!! And a five. A four. A three.
And a two.
Of the same suit.
What do you mean, that beats four aces? WE HAVE FOUR ACES! WE HAVE THE FOUR TOP CARDS!! That MUST win??
Yep, the little guys had the little cards. But they had a winning hand.
And I haven't heard of a single Tory MP who still believes their four aces is a winning hand. (And if they did, they should expect a tap on the shoulder from their Constituency Chair....) The basic truth of June is that our politicians found they were wearing a choke-chain. And in June, for the first time since our European adventure began in 1973, that choke-chain got pulled. Sharply.
In Brexiteer world, nothing modern is worth anything.
"If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate. "
Count me among the enthusiastic philistines. Tinned turd? Yes, that's challenging. OMG, the
stunning insight.
We could do a double-blind trial, the "real art" against the random rubbish. See what the p-value is.
I still believe it's a giant piss-take (as opposed to a turd-take). Come on, Foxy, admit it. I'll admit you had me fooled for a while.
The Cunctator (Quintus Fabius Maximus) was a man of great military insight and unyielding moral virtue. He also disagreed with almost all the political class and acted in what he deemed was Rome's best interests (despite the moaning of the Senators).
The Tate Modern is actually worth a vist to look at the inside of the rather splendid power station conversion, free entry too - but dont make it a long visit as the execrations inside and the fools taking them seriously get too much.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
You are rather proving my point. Subjective views may differ and I will tease you for yours. But that doesn't make you an idiot. Misguided? That's the nature of subjective views.
If we ran a double-blind trial, do you believe you could identify your "art" against a selection of random objects. Could you explain why it's art? Or is it a metaphysical thing that I'm not privy to?
Oh, and have a good day.
Some modernish art is quite lovely for many reasons. There's one work that captured me from across the room and was gorgeous in its composition. 95% of it IMO self indulgent cobblers lauded by those who want to impress their pseudish friends.
I'm a millennial europhile remainer living in France and I've accepted the result and have no desire for 2nd referendums/ parliament vetoes, etc - so I'm sure the vast majority of remainers are in the same boat. Let's just get on with it at this point.
So also, War and Peace is a work of art. I think we should all be able to agree on that. But it is written in a special language, Russian in this case. Hence, if a non-Russian speaker is to read and enjoy the book, they will need it to be translated. Into English, say.
Look at modern art in the same way. It uses a vocabulary that many people don't understand. Geometric patterns, found objects, installations, etc. And why should they? There is no innate sense which lets you interpret one of, say, Mondrian's intersecting line paintings.
So just because you don't understand a work of art, for the entirely understandable reason that you don't know its vocabulary...doesn't mean it is not a work of art. You are in effect saying that if you give an English speaker two books, one in English and one in Russian, he can legitimately say that only the one written in English is art.
Whether modern art is all good or bad is of course a separate issue.
Your welcome.
Give someone a can of pickled dogshit and they'll throw it away, tell them Damien Hurst made it and they'll stick it in a gallery"
I think you've described the placebo effect. The mind is a wonderful thing. But it's even better if it's exclusive and not inclusive.
Anyway, I suspect we are dealing with unlike minds. All part of life's rich tapestry. But I prefer Constable to a building site.
However, the key issue is what proportion of Parliament (with perhaps 2/3 of the Commons being Remain) feel that way.
I've really tried to stay out of this, but I have to agree with southam on this. For all that there are remainers out there who might dream of using this to delay or even prevent Brexit, politically there seems no path to that so we can set that aside and focus on the question of who has the legal authority to trigger a50. It will be triggered and we will leave, the commons has the votes to push it through if needs be, it's a question of process.
Now, few here are lawyers and fewer still are going to be experts on matters or arcane consituational theory, so I come at it from a position of reasonableness and known facts. It strikes me that many of my fellow leavers, despite their confident protestations of Brexit is Brexit, seem paranoid about it not happening, or else why get so worried by parliament rubber stamping the triggering? Courts are entitled to be asked these questions, and no matter how many times we point to our side winning 52 48 the people are not legally sovereign is my understanding. Yes, practical considerations make enacting the popular will very clearly the only option here, but since when did that mean power was delegated to them? That was one of the claims of some euros to suggest we'd already triggered a50 and it is simply factually wrong as I understand it.
Our system of checks and balances and where referenda fit in and what the executive can do with the royal prerogative is all a bit of a muddle. That is very very British of us. The muddle needs to be untangled and government assurance isn't enough to untangle it, governments are wrong a lot. Many people seem to wish we lived in a much simpler system, where the people's will means arcane questions like this are irrelevant.
Well we don't and they aren't. And since Brexit is in no danger in practice in all but the fevered dreams of a few, it seems right that whatever the motivation of those who asked the question, the question should be settled. If the government is right, well that makes things simpler. If it is wrong, I would suggest that parliament woukd still trigger things, and there are advantages to putting them collectively on the spot to do so. So where is the harm if the courts rule they must? Worst case scenario the parliament refuses to trigger it and that will trigger a general election for sure, no way the government survives that, and angry brexiteers will surely be more represented afterwards and a new vote taken.
Banksy and Dali are two good examples of excellent self publicists and original artists.
Since Brexit is Brexit, I am comfortable settling all legal questions as much as is practicable. What I find more uncomfortable than sone bitter remainers seeking in vain to frustrate matters is claims the referendum granted power where it did not, on questions of process it has no impact on, and dismissal of the British tradition of fudging a solution to this because a referendum result for some reason means people are not allowed to question process anymore.
People on both sides are ignoring what the court is being asked to clarify in favour of arguments they would prefer to have, reframing it into questions of ignoring the referendum, which politically will never happen so no matter if legal, or by pretending, in this instance, constitutional questions are unimportant because...well I don't know. Leave has won, this is just a process question, calm the heck down.
http://cadw.gov.wales/events/poppies-at-caernarfon-castle/?lang=en
The Armstrong and Miller sketch, as Brabbyns and Fyffe (Flanders and Swann):
Brabbyns (addressing audience): contrary to appearances, young Fyffe here is actually quite cultured.
Fyffe: Yes, we've just had the most edifying conversation about the nature of art.
Brabbyns: You see -- a conversation!
While I remain open to the suggestion that Damian Hirst is just a graphic designer who got lucky, once you start complaining about art, where do you stop? If you want to know what sunflowers look like, there are better photos in a seed catalogue than Van Gogh ever managed.
In times before, it was a profession - with apprenticeships, workshops churning product out 'School of XYZ' and packed with clever allusions, political commentary and witty allegories. There was of course an industry for sucking-up portraiture for the aristos or religious big wigs too.
I find modern stuff such vacuous attention seeking Pot Noodle.
It's pretty clear that 'some' politicians would seek to keep us in the EU.
But too often the experts believe that educating the plebs is beneath them, and prefer to sneer.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
So IMO the EU has *helped* keep the peace, but it was far from the only factor in that peace.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
The museums do try - look at the big explanatory posters at the entrance to most galleries, or read the catalogue.
This would fit in an average laptop bag. And even standing inches away from it - I still can't get over the brushwork precision, it's stunning.
http://www.dhresource.com/0x0s/f2-albu-g3-M00-15-47-rBVaHFZrk_yAd-yGAADFDAXADds530.jpg/wall-art-modern-dream-caused-tigers-salvador.jpg
The Commons might vote either way. I think the Lords likelier to vote for us to stay in.
A minority of Remain supporters are trying to ignore and override the referendum's result.
As we left, my GF asked my dad what he thought if it. He said at the top of his voice: "It's all a load of sh*t."
Though it's worth it for the building: Bankside is a glorious piece of architecture. So much better than Battersea.
I work in an area where questions of process arise all the time. Like planning applications, the questions are usually raised by people who are vehemently opposed and looking for ways to obstruct. But that doesn't mean sometimes they cannot identify a point worth raising. And notably, usually it doesn't prevent the outcome they didn't want in the end, and theyve just helped make it a more solid decision, frustrating though it was set the time.
It was nowhere near as important as Europhiles like to make out, but much more important that the Europhobes think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law
This review is spot on
"As well as being a splendid introduction to the paintings and the philosophy behind them, this book is particularly good on the relationship between the artists and their rich patrons, and between the artists and their materials. It's full of intriguing details. Why, for example, pure blue is so rare as well as so rich -- at this period, all the lapis lazuli that European painters could use was mined from one mine (somewhere in Afghanistan) and imported solely through Venice... So it's no surprise to see patrons putting clauses in their contracts with their artists: "use the best blue at 4 ducats the ounce; don't try palming me off with any 2-ducat rubbish!"
If this is the sort of thing that makes you go "yippee!" and grin, as the past comes alive for you, then this is definitely the book for you.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Painting-Experience-Fifteenth-Century-Italy-Paperbacks/dp/019282144X