Here's a serious question: How does one know for sure whether someone falls asleep? For instance I knew someone who could sleep with his eyes wide open. I think sleep is more a Schroedinger cat state with probabilities of the result of a measurement's outcome. What form, here, should that measurement take? Plugging him into an electroencephalograph?
When I did a sleep study a few years back, an eeg was used as you say. I believe these days there are mobile phone apps which claim to monitor sleep.
If I am in a meeting and really concentrating on what someone is saying, I tend to close my eyes. Apparently I've always done it, and people just get used to it.
I once got a job by falling asleep during the interview process. The job was to take over a failing project, and part of the process was to attend a current project meeting. The project leader (soon to leave) was incredibly bureaucratic and the meeting droned on for hours, debating fine points of previous minutes etc. I couldn't stop dozing off.
Afterwards, the CEO said to me that I didn't seem very interested in the project, eh? I asked him sharply (nothing to lose) if he wanted someone to deliver the project, or someone who enjoyed meetings. "Hmm, good answer," he said, and I got the job.
I am surprised to see Angela Rayner drawing attention to haing become a grandmother at the age of 37. Bad enough surely to have had a child out of wedlock herself at 16 - yet she appears happy to highlight the fact that her 21 year old son has done the same thing. Perhaps such immorality runs in families - but she does not strike me as a role model that we should have in a position of authority at all.
Whoosh!
Or are you a bastard, possibly in both senses of the word?
No - I just adhere to Christian standards of behaviour with regard to personal morality. It sometimes leads to my being accused of being more rightwing than most Tories.
Christ was born by God's rape of a child. Is that what you mean by "Christian standards of behaviour with regard to personal morality"? Or does He not count as a role model?
I am surprised to see Angela Rayner drawing attention to haing become a grandmother at the age of 37. Bad enough surely to have had a child out of wedlock herself at 16 - yet she appears happy to highlight the fact that her 21 year old son has done the same thing. Perhaps such immorality runs in families - but she does not strike me as a role model that we should have in a position of authority at all.
Whoosh!
Or are you a bastard, possibly in both senses of the word?
No - I just adhere to Christian standards of behaviour with regard to personal morality. It sometimes leads to my being accused of being more rightwing than most Tories.
You have to work really, really hard to find any evidence that JC was particularly fussed about a bit of extramarital porkswordsmanship with either one's own or the opposite sex; just as well, considering the circumstances of his own birth. Especially, you have to realise that that self-righteous bully Saul of Tarsus never met him and had no particular claim to speak for him. What JC really had no time for, is the Pharisaism of which you are such a good example.
But until a few decades ago my views would have been seen as mainstream. Mary Whitehouse and Ann Widdecombe would be likely to agree - as would a good few Vicars and other Ministers of Religion.
Rather meaningless poll that represents the fact that the politician who has been accused of harassment very prominently lately is a Republican. Would be interesting if this was a tracker and we had comparable figures for at the height of the Bill Clinton sexual harassment allegations. I expect you'd see comparable figures but with the party names switched.
You are of course correct which is why @AlastairMeeks approach to this is fundamentally wrong. There is an obligation on the government to implement the decision of the people, not the wish list of any particular band of loons who campaigned for it. They should do so in the most constructive way possible. The fact that May was able to carry the decision to double the money on the table in exchange for trade talks is a good sign.
And they say that Remain supporters are undemocratic.
The Leave campaign was won on a specific prospectus. The cynicism of some Leavers in wishing to junk what they fell in behind is breathtaking.
Says you. The rest of us just know how and why we voted. There were many, many different reasons.
You cannot ignore the fact that the official Vote Leave campaign fought on the basis that immigration control would be repatriated and Britain would leave the single market. If you were silly enough to vote Leave and didn't want those things, more fool you.
As it happens I did want both of those things but trying to say that everyone who voted leave did is absurd. This was not a party with a manifesto for government. It has no duty of implementation. The elected government does and has a duty to do this in our best interests respecting the one thing we know for certain: a majority in our largest vote ever wanted to leave the EU. So get on with it.
The referendum was fought on a prospectus. You can't just rip it up because you repent of xenophobic lies on posters.
What xenophobic lies?
Turkey is not joining the EU and the wicked suggestion that it was,
Turkey's membership bid wasn't frozen until 5 months after the referendum.
Hang on, aren't the Republicans right on that? Firstly, it says 'accusation', not a conviction. Secondly, it also says 'consider', not 'definitely'.
Are you saying people should not look at the accusations for themselves and consider whether they are/may be true, and if they are true, whether it affects their vote?
You are of course correct which is why @AlastairMeeks approach to this is fundamentally wrong. There is an obligation on the government to implement the decision of the people, not the wish list of any particular band of loons who campaigned for it. They should do so in the most constructive way possible. The fact that May was able to carry the decision to double the money on the table in exchange for trade talks is a good sign.
And they say that Remain supporters are undemocratic.
The Leave campaign was won on a specific prospectus. The cynicism of some Leavers in wishing to junk what they fell in behind is breathtaking.
Says you. The rest of us just know how and why we voted. There were many, many different reasons.
You cannot ignore the fact that the official Vote Leave campaign fought on the basis that immigration control would be repatriated and Britain would leave the single market. If you were silly enough to vote Leave and didn't want those things, more fool you.
As it happens I did want both of those things but trying to say that everyone who voted leave did is absurd. This was not a party with a manifesto for government. It has no duty of implementation. The elected government does and has a duty to do this in our best interests respecting the one thing we know for certain: a majority in our largest vote ever wanted to leave the EU. So get on with it.
The referendum was fought on a prospectus. You can't just rip it up because you repent of xenophobic lies on posters.
What xenophobic lies?
Turkey is not joining the EU and the wicked suggestion that it was, to frighten middle England that it was going to be inundated with 76 million Muslims, was xenophobic in intent.
You know that, I know that. How you sleep at night trying to defend it is beyond me but I guess it's your conscience.
Turkey was joining the EU it was an official accession state and our then Prime Minister had repeatedly and loudly said that it should happen. It was official British policy. You know that, I know that.
If you want to call anyone lying for stating British government policy as fact then accuse the PM, not a political campaign.
Here's a serious question: How does one know for sure whether someone falls asleep? For instance I knew someone who could sleep with his eyes wide open. I think sleep is more a Schroedinger cat state with probabilities of the result of a measurement's outcome. What form, here, should that measurement take? Plugging him into an electroencephalograph?
When I did a sleep study a few years back, an eeg was used as you say. I believe these days there are mobile phone apps which claim to monitor sleep.
If I am in a meeting and really concentrating on what someone is saying, I tend to close my eyes. Apparently I've always done it, and people just get used to it.
I once got a job by falling asleep during the interview process. The job was to take over a failing project, and part of the process was to attend a current project meeting. The project leader (soon to leave) was incredibly bureaucratic and the meeting droned on for hours, debating fine points of previous minutes etc. I couldn't stop dozing off.
Afterwards, the CEO said to me that I didn't seem very interested in the project, eh? I asked him sharply (nothing to lose) if he wanted someone to deliver the project, or someone who enjoyed meetings. "Hmm, good answer," he said, and I got the job.
We can see why you felt qualified to stand as a member of parliament!
(The sleeping, that is, rather than the dislike of meetings)
@DavidL "The fact that May was able to carry the decision to double the money on the table in exchange for trade talks is a good sign." To me it is worrying, even though it seems to be contingent on a quid pro quo. It's the devil-may-care attitude of bandying about billions that makes me uneasy.
It depends entirely on the trade offer, as you say. I suspect we are heading for a deal that will be fairly close to free trade on goods, but not services.
It is a form of protection money. That is, the EU tariffs that might be avoided by the payment only serve the purpose of protecting European industries. To pay £20bn (!) to avoid the tariffs so that we can compete on a level playing field in their market and thereby support our exporters is a pretty steep price for UK taxpayers to bear. It is a straight transfer from them to the eurocrats in Brussels, and to our exporting producers.
You are of course correct which is why @AlastairMeeks approach to this is fundamentally wrong. There is an obligation on the government to implement the decision of the people, not the wish list of any particular band of loons who campaigned for it. They should do so in the most constructive way possible. The fact that May was able to carry the decision to double the money on the table in exchange for trade talks is a good sign.
And they say that Remain supporters are undemocratic.
The Leave campaign was won on a specific prospectus. The cynicism of some Leavers in wishing to junk what they fell in behind is breathtaking.
Says you. The rest of us just know how and why we voted. There were many, many different reasons.
You cannot ignore the fact that the official Vote Leave campaign fought on the basis that immigration control would be repatriated and Britain would leave the single market. If you were silly enough to vote Leave and didn't want those things, more fool you.
As it happens I did want both of those things but trying to say that everyone who voted leave did is absurd. This was not a party with a manifesto for government. It has no duty of implementation. The elected government does and has a duty to do this in our best interests respecting the one thing we know for certain: a majority in our largest vote ever wanted to leave the EU. So get on with it.
The referendum was fought on a prospectus. You can't just rip it up because you repent of xenophobic lies on posters.
What xenophobic lies?
Turkey is not joining the EU and the wicked suggestion that it was,
Turkey's membership bid wasn't frozen until 5 months after the referendum.
Turkey has been trying to join the EU since the 1960s. It isn't joining it and wasn't joining it before the referendum either.
Leavers willingness to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment on baseless scare stories in the referendum campaign is a large part of why Brexit is now floundering.
When that suspension took place no serious commentator anywhere said "this is just a formality because the EU was never going to admit Turkey anyway"; it is a bit of particularly infantile magical thinking, exclusive to PB, that the Turks were being strung along, with the revolting subtext that this is absolutely OK behaviour because after all, they are only Turks.
You are of course correct which is why @AlastairMeeks approach to this is fundamentally wrong. There is an obligation on the government to implement the decision of the people, not the wish list of any particular band of loons who campaigned for it. They should do so in the most constructive way possible. The fact that May was able to carry the decision to double the money on the table in exchange for trade talks is a good sign.
And they say that Remain supporters are undemocratic.
The Leave campaign was won on a specific prospectus. The cynicism of some Leavers in wishing to junk what they fell in behind is breathtaking.
Says you. The rest of us just know how and why we voted. There were many, many different reasons.
You cannot ignore the fact that the official Vote Leave campaign fought on the basis that immigration control would be repatriated and Britain would leave the single market. If you were silly enough to vote Leave and didn't want those things, more fool you.
As it happens I did want both of those things but trying to say that everyone who voted leave did is absurd. This was not a party with a manifesto for government. It has no duty of implementation. The elected government does and has a duty to do this in our best interests respecting the one thing we know for certain: a majority in our largest vote ever wanted to leave the EU. So get on with it.
The referendum was fought on a prospectus. You can't just rip it up because you repent of xenophobic lies on posters.
What xenophobic lies?
Turkey is not joining the EU and the wicked suggestion that it was,
Turkey's membership bid wasn't frozen until 5 months after the referendum.
Turkey has been trying to join the EU since the 1960s. It isn't joining it and wasn't joining it before the referendum either.
Here's a serious question: How does one know for sure whether someone falls asleep? For instance I knew someone who could sleep with his eyes wide open. I think sleep is more a Schroedinger cat state with probabilities of the result of a measurement's outcome. What form, here, should that measurement take? Plugging him into an electroencephalograph?
When I did a sleep study a few years back, an eeg was used as you say. I believe these days there are mobile phone apps which claim to monitor sleep.
If I am in a meeting and really concentrating on what someone is saying, I tend to close my eyes. Apparently I've always done it, and people just get used to it.
I once got a job by falling asleep during the interview process. The job was to take over a failing project, and part of the process was to attend a current project meeting. The project leader (soon to leave) was incredibly bureaucratic and the meeting droned on for hours, debating fine points of previous minutes etc. I couldn't stop dozing off.
Afterwards, the CEO said to me that I didn't seem very interested in the project, eh? I asked him sharply (nothing to lose) if he wanted someone to deliver the project, or someone who enjoyed meetings. "Hmm, good answer," he said, and I got the job.
When that suspension took place no serious commentator anywhere said "this is just a formality because the EU was never going to admit Turkey anyway"; it is a bit of particularly infantile magical thinking, exclusive to PB, that the Turks were being strung along, with the revolting subtext that this is absolutely OK behaviour because after all, they are only Turks.
This is straightforwardly wrong. This is dated 26 May 2016:
In brief: Turkey is a candidate to join the EU. But it’s unlikely to join any time soon. There are tensions to be resolved over Cyprus before aspects of the negotiation can even be opened, and the EU has concerns over Turkey’s human rights record. If and when the negotiations finish, Turkey must get approval to join from each existing EU member. Some are opposed to, or planning to hold a referendum on, Turkish membership. Support for membership among the Turkish population has declined since 2010. "
"Other EU members have strongly opposed Turkish membership. Both France and Austria will put the question of Turkish accession to a referendum, so Turkey would need to get approval from the popular vote in each country.
This would make vetoes from those countries likely, as they are amongst the more Turkey-sceptic members."
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
I am surprised to see Angela Rayner drawing attention to haing become a grandmother at the age of 37. Bad enough surely to have had a child out of wedlock herself at 16 - yet she appears happy to highlight the fact that her 21 year old son has done the same thing. Perhaps such immorality runs in families - but she does not strike me as a role model that we should have in a position of authority at all.
Whoosh!
Or are you a bastard, possibly in both senses of the word?
No - I just adhere to Christian standards of behaviour with regard to personal morality. It sometimes leads to my being accused of being more rightwing than most Tories.
You have to work really, really hard to find any evidence that JC was particularly fussed about a bit of extramarital porkswordsmanship with either one's own or the opposite sex; just as well, considering the circumstances of his own birth. Especially, you have to realise that that self-righteous bully Saul of Tarsus never met him and had no particular claim to speak for him. What JC really had no time for, is the Pharisaism of which you are such a good example.
The difficulty is that in both the Old Testament and the New, marital infidelity is used as an allegory for mans relationship with God. Condemnation of adulterers is often condemnation of those lacking in religious faith.
In many ways JC adheres to a higher standard, for example anyone looking lustfully at a woman comitting adultery in their heart.
Turkey was joining the EU it was an official accession state and our then Prime Minister had repeatedly and loudly said that it should happen. It was official British policy. You know that, I know that.
If you want to call anyone lying for stating British government policy as fact then accuse the PM, not a political campaign.
'Joining' implies they were going to join. That is wrong; they were at best a candidate to join.
Turkey was talking about joining the EU - i.e. they were negotiating. Before they could join, they had to meet many criteria. They had been working towards meeting these criteria for years and had made virtually no progress.
A Turkey that had met all the chapters of the AC, and was therefore in a position to join the EU, would be a very different country to the one they were at that start of the process, or are now. Which is sort of the point of the AC. And heir progress towards them was glacial.
That is leaving aside the political problems they would have faced to join: not just internally, but also within the EU, with some states looking very likely to block their accession.
Rather meaningless poll that represents the fact that the politician who has been accused of harassment very prominently lately is a Republican. Would be interesting if this was a tracker and we had comparable figures for at the height of the Bill Clinton sexual harassment allegations. I expect you'd see comparable figures but with the party names switched.
Rather meaningless poll that represents the fact that the politician who has been accused of harassment very prominently lately is a Republican. Would be interesting if this was a tracker and we had comparable figures for at the height of the Bill Clinton sexual harassment allegations. I expect you'd see comparable figures but with the party names switched.
Not meaningless, given that Al Franken (Democrat) has recently been accused of sexual harassment.
Furthermore recent polling shows that while 53% of Democrats believe the Bill Clinton allegations have credibility, that number is in single digits for Republicans regarding Trump, a group who also happen to not believe the O’Reilly allegations.
I am surprised to see Angela Rayner drawing attention to haing become a grandmother at the age of 37. Bad enough surely to have had a child out of wedlock herself at 16 - yet she appears happy to highlight the fact that her 21 year old son has done the same thing. Perhaps such immorality runs in families - but she does not strike me as a role model that we should have in a position of authority at all.
Whoosh!
Or are you a bastard, possibly in both senses of the word?
No - I just adhere to Christian standards of behaviour with regard to personal morality. It sometimes leads to my being accused of being more rightwing than most Tories.
You have to work really, really hard to find any evidence that JC was particularly fussed about a bit of extramarital porkswordsmanship with either one's own or the opposite sex; just as well, considering the circumstances of his own birth. Especially, you have to realise that that self-righteous bully Saul of Tarsus never met him and had no particular claim to speak for him. What JC really had no time for, is the Pharisaism of which you are such a good example.
The difficulty is that in both the Old Testament and the New, marital infidelity is used as an allegory for mans relationship with God. Condemnation of adulterers is often condemnation of those lacking in religious faith.
In many ways JC adheres to a higher standard, for example anyone looking lustfully at a woman comitting adultery in their heart.
Go thou and sin no more. Works both ways, doesn’t it.
You are of course correct which is why @AlastairMeeks approach to this is fundamentally wrong. There is an obligation on the government to implement the decision of the people, not the wish list of any particular band of loons who campaigned for it. They should do so in the most constructive way possible. The fact that May was able to carry the decision to double the money on the table in exchange for trade talks is a good sign.
And they say that Remain supporters are undemocratic.
The Leave campaign was won on a specific prospectus. The cynicism of some Leavers in wishing to junk what they fell in behind is breathtaking.
Says you. The rest of us just know how and why we voted. There were many, many different reasons.
You cannot ignore the fact that the official Vote Leave campaign fought on the basis that immigration control would be repatriated and Britain would leave the single market. If you were silly enough to vote Leave and didn't want those things, more fool you.
As it happens I did want both of those things but trying to say that everyone who voted leave did is absurd. This was not a party with a manifesto for government. It has no duty of implementation. The elected government does and has a duty to do this in our best interests respecting the one thing we know for certain: a majority in our largest vote ever wanted to leave the EU. So get on with it.
The referendum was fought on a prospectus. You can't just rip it up because you repent of xenophobic lies on posters.
What xenophobic lies?
Turkey is not joining the EU and the wicked suggestion that it was,
Turkey's membership bid wasn't frozen until 5 months after the referendum.
Turkey has been trying to join the EU since the 1960s. It isn't joining it and wasn't joining it before the referendum either.
Leavers willingness to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment on baseless scare stories in the referendum campaign is a large part of why Brexit is now floundering.
Then why was our Prime Minister lying to us and the Turks?
Does anyone know what’s the record for the greatest number of lawsuits against a single company? https://jalopnik.com/uber-hit-with-8-9-million-fine-in-colorado-for-allowin-1820641317 Another $9m fine, this time for the “administrative oversight” of allowing drivers with felony DUI convictions, felony assault convictions, legally suspended and medically cancelled driving licences to work for them...
You are of course correct which is why @AlastairMeeks approach to this is fundamentally wrong. There is an obligation on the government to implement the decision of the people, not the wish list of any particular band of loons who campaigned for it. They should do so in the most constructive way possible. The fact that May was able to carry the decision to double the money on the table in exchange for trade talks is a good sign.
And they say that Remain supporters are undemocratic.
The Leave campaign was won on a specific prospectus. The cynicism of some Leavers in wishing to junk what they fell in behind is breathtaking.
Says you. The rest of us just know how and why we voted. There were many, many different reasons.
You cannot ignore the fact that the official Vote Leave campaign fought on the basis that immigration control would be repatriated and Britain would leave the single market. If you were silly enough to vote Leave and didn't want those things, more fool you.
As it happens I did want both of those things but trying to say that everyone who voted leave did is absurd. This was not a party with a manifesto for government. It has no duty of implementation. The elected government does and has a duty to do this in our best interests respecting the one thing we know for certain: a majority in our largest vote ever wanted to leave the EU. So get on with it.
The referendum was fought on a prospectus. You can't just rip it up because you repent of xenophobic lies on posters.
What xenophobic lies?
Turkey is not joining the EU and the wicked suggestion that it was,
Turkey's membership bid wasn't frozen until 5 months after the referendum.
Turkey has been trying to join the EU since the 1960s. It isn't joining it and wasn't joining it before the referendum either.
Leavers willingness to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment on baseless scare stories in the referendum campaign is a large part of why Brexit is now floundering.
Then why was our Prime Minister lying to us and the Turks?
Rather meaningless poll that represents the fact that the politician who has been accused of harassment very prominently lately is a Republican. Would be interesting if this was a tracker and we had comparable figures for at the height of the Bill Clinton sexual harassment allegations. I expect you'd see comparable figures but with the party names switched.
Not meaningless, given that Al Franken (Democrat) has recently been accused of sexual harassment.
Furthermore recent polling shows that while 53% of Democrats believe the Bill Clinton allegations have credibility, that number is in single digits for Republicans regarding Trump, a group who also happen to not believe the O’Reilly allegations.
Al Franken has received a lot less publicity than Moore plus not sure on the dates of it. Plus nobody has been debating whether Franken should be voted for now, whereas that has been discussed ad nauseum currently with Moore.
Sorry but comparing current polling of Bill Clinton (now an historical figure) with current polling of Trump (actually President today) is just absurd. You need to compare polling of Clinton that was contemporary at the time of the allegations.
Hang on, aren't the Republicans right on that? Firstly, it says 'accusation', not a conviction. Secondly, it also says 'consider', not 'definitely'.
Are you saying people should not look at the accusations for themselves and consider whether they are/may be true, and if they are true, whether it affects their vote?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
I don’t agree. Firstly, the law may be different in America, but here I think it’s been mentioned before that sexual harassment isn’t a crime, so you can’t actually be convicted for it. Secondly, I don’t think someone has be ‘convicted’ or found ‘guilty’ for you to not want to vote for them. Roy Moore hasn’t been found guilty per se, but I don’t think 8/9 women are lying, much like I don’t think Harvey Weinstein’s accusers are lying.
You are of course correct which is why @AlastairMeeks approach to this is fundamentally wrong. There is an obligation on the government to implement the decision of the people, not the wish list of any particular band of loons who campaigned for it. They should do so in the most constructive way possible. The fact that May was able to carry the decision to double the money on the table in exchange for trade talks is a good sign.
And they say that Remain supporters are undemocratic.
The Leave campaign was won on a specific prospectus. The cynicism of some Leavers in wishing to junk what they fell in behind is breathtaking.
Says you. The rest of us just know how and why we voted. There were many, many different reasons.
You cannot ignore the fact that the official Vote Leave campaign fought on the basis that immigration control would be repatriated and Britain would leave the single market. If you were silly enough to vote Leave and didn't want those things, more fool you.
As it happens I did want both of those things but trying to say that everyone who voted leave did is absurd. This was not a party with a manifesto for government. It has no duty of implementation. The elected government does and has a duty to do this in our best interests respecting the one thing we know for certain: a majority in our largest vote ever wanted to leave the EU. So get on with it.
The referendum was fought on a prospectus. You can't just rip it up because you repent of xenophobic lies on posters.
What xenophobic lies?
Turkey is not joining the EU and the wicked suggestion that it was,
Turkey's membership bid wasn't frozen until 5 months after the referendum.
Turkey has been trying to join the EU since the 1960s. It isn't joining it and wasn't joining it before the referendum either.
Leavers willingness to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment on baseless scare stories in the referendum campaign is a large part of why Brexit is now floundering.
Then why was our Prime Minister lying to us and the Turks?
It appears Cameron (and hence the remain campaign) was guilty of "xenophobic lies" - until 2 minutes until midnight.
I don't understand why she hasn't gone for this sort of option. I really don't.
The option she's chosen is quite likely not to succeed, even if it does will probably piss off quite a lot of both Remainers and Leavers and has probably poisoned relations with the EU for some time, as well as making Britain look unstable, incompetent and weak. She's like a King John of our times.
The campaign was fought on ending free movement and leaving the single market.
EFTA would have been Brexit in name only and an affront to democracy.
This is why campaigns matter.
I take a different view.
She was not in the Leave campaign. She became PM. She should have taken decisions in the best interests of the country which included, yes, implementing the decision but doing so in a way which was in the country's best interests.
And if that meant saying that disengaging from a union in which we had been a member for more than 40 years would take time and that EFTA was an option which caused the least harm etc then I think she ought to have had the balls to go for that.
MPs are representatives not simply delegates. They owe us their judgment.
All the more so when there has been a divisive campaign and the Leave campaign had two different groupings. PMs don't always implement their own manifestos. So I don't think that not implementing a confused manifesto of single issue campaigning group which disappeared into the mists as soon as the referendum was over should have been treated as some sort of Holy Writ, to be implemented only in its most fundamentalist form.
Had she tried to do that, she would have been ousted by Tory Leavers within hours.
Would she? Really?
You know the Tory party better than me. But I wonder. She may have been afraid of this. But that's another matter. And PM's - if they use their office intelligently - have a lot of power. She was hidebound in her own mind and had never had to build any sort of coalition or know how to prepare the ground for an elegant retreat or a sidestep or how to speak hard truths etc. She was, in short, promoted way beyond her level of competence and the country is now suffering as a result.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
We're leaving the EU. That's clear.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
Turkey was a candidate to join; AIUI that means they had to meet a set of criteria, and then survive a vote of the existing members. Only then would they be 'joining'.
If I applied for a job and had an interview, I'm not joining that company until they offer me the position.
I am surprised to see Angela Rayner drawing attention to haing become a grandmother at the age of 37. Bad enough surely to have had a child out of wedlock herself at 16 - yet she appears happy to highlight the fact that her 21 year old son has done the same thing. Perhaps such immorality runs in families - but she does not strike me as a role model that we should have in a position of authority at all.
Did you have sex before marriage?
Most certainly not! Moreover, I doubt that HM the Queen did or Mrs Thatcher.
Cameron changed his tune AFTER Vote Leave started quoting him. Tad unfair on Vote Leave to expect a Damascene Conversion of Cameron during the Referendum to be taken seriously.
Try quoting what Cameron said before the Referendum? He was abundantly clear Turkey should join.
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
Rather meaningless poll that represents the fact that the politician who has been accused of harassment very prominently lately is a Republican. Would be interesting if this was a tracker and we had comparable figures for at the height of the Bill Clinton sexual harassment allegations. I expect you'd see comparable figures but with the party names switched.
Not meaningless, given that Al Franken (Democrat) has recently been accused of sexual harassment.
Furthermore recent polling shows that while 53% of Democrats believe the Bill Clinton allegations have credibility, that number is in single digits for Republicans regarding Trump, a group who also happen to not believe the O’Reilly allegations.
Al Franken has received a lot less publicity than Moore plus not sure on the dates of it. Plus nobody has been debating whether Franken should be voted for now, whereas that has been discussed ad nauseum currently with Moore.
Sorry but comparing current polling of Bill Clinton (now an historical figure) with current polling of Trump (actually President today) is just absurd. You need to compare polling of Clinton that was contemporary at the time of the allegations.
Franken’s hasn’t received ‘a lot less publicity’. Sure not as much as Moore, but it’s still being talked about on American news stations/late night shows enough for people to be aware. Franken’s is also fairly recent story, having broken on Friday. People actually are debating whether Franken’s should resign.
Sorry, I don’t buy into your argument that comparing Bill Clinton’s polling with Trump is absurd. What is relevant is what Democrats and Republicans now think, not what they thought twenty years ago over a presidency which we can’t do anything about.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
We're leaving the EU. That's clear.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
Turkey was a candidate to join; AIUI that means they had to meet a set of criteria, and then survive a vote of the existing members. Only then would they be 'joining'.
If I applied for a job and had an interview, I'm not joining that company until they offer me the position.
What I find fascinating whenever this subject comes up is that all the usual suspects frantically try to justify the literal wording. But they never, not once, try to argue, that the poster was for any other purpose than to stir up baseless fears of mass immigration of Muslims.
They're happy to accept that they were pandering to xenophobia but baulk at being described as liars. Curious.
I don't understand why she hasn't gone for this sort of option. I really don't.
The option she's chosen is quite likely not to succeed, even if it does will probably piss off quite a lot of both Remainers and Leavers and has probably poisoned relations with the EU for some time, as well as making Britain look unstable, incompetent and weak. She's like a King John of our times.
The campaign was fought on ending free movement and leaving the single market.
EFTA would have been Brexit in name only and an affront to democracy.
This is why campaigns matter.
I take a different view.
She was not in the Leave campaign. She became PM. She should have taken decisions in the best interests of the country which included, yes, implementing the decision but doing so in a way which was in the country's best interests.
And if that meant saying that disengaging from a union in which we had been a member for more than 40 years would take time and that EFTA was an option which caused the least harm etc then I think she ought to have had the balls to go for that.
MPs are representatives not simply delegates. They owe us their judgment.
All the more so when there has been a divisive campaign and the Leave campaign had two different groupings. PMs don't always implement their own manifestos. So I don't think that not implementing a confused manifesto of single issue campaigning group which disappeared into the mists as soon as the referendum was over should have been treated as some sort of Holy Writ, to be implemented only in its most fundamentalist form.
Had she tried to do that, she would have been ousted by Tory Leavers within hours.
Would she? Really?
You know the Tory party better than me. But I wonder. She may have been afraid of this. But that's another matter. And PM's - if they use their office intelligently - have a lot of power. She was hidebound in her own mind and had never had to build any sort of coalition or know how to prepare the ground for an elegant retreat or a sidestep or how to speak hard truths etc. She was, in short, promoted way beyond her level of competence and the country is now suffering as a result.
Yup, there’s some real Brexit fundamentalists in the party.
The likes of Bill Cash, John Redwood, IDS, and JRM won’t countenance it.
Hell some of them want Hard/WTO Brexit over anything else.
Here's a serious question: How does one know for sure whether someone falls asleep? For instance I knew someone who could sleep with his eyes wide open. I think sleep is more a Schroedinger cat state with probabilities of the result of a measurement's outcome. What form, here, should that measurement take? Plugging him into an electroencephalograph?
Most modern fitbits or similar monitor sleep patterns and can differentiate between various depths if sleep
Rather meaningless poll that represents the fact that the politician who has been accused of harassment very prominently lately is a Republican. Would be interesting if this was a tracker and we had comparable figures for at the height of the Bill Clinton sexual harassment allegations. I expect you'd see comparable figures but with the party names switched.
Not meaningless, given that Al Franken (Democrat) has recently been accused of sexual harassment.
Furthermore recent polling shows that while 53% of Democrats believe the Bill Clinton allegations have credibility, that number is in single digits for Republicans regarding Trump, a group who also happen to not believe the O’Reilly allegations.
Al Franken has received a lot less publicity than Moore plus not sure on the dates of it. Plus nobody has been debating whether Franken should be voted for now, whereas that has been discussed ad nauseum currently with Moore.
Sorry but comparing current polling of Bill Clinton (now an historical figure) with current polling of Trump (actually President today) is just absurd. You need to compare polling of Clinton that was contemporary at the time of the allegations.
Franken’s hasn’t received ‘a lot less publicity’. Sure not as much as Moore, but it’s still being talked about on American news stations/late night shows enough for people to be aware. Franken’s is also fairly recent story, having broken on Friday. People actually are debating whether Franken’s should resign.
Sorry, I don’t buy into your argument that comparing Bill Clinton’s polling with Trump is absurd. What is relevant is what Democrats and Republicans now think, not what they thought twenty years ago over a presidency which we can’t do anything about.
What both sets of voters think is "my side is good, your side is bad".
If someone you like on your side is getting accused of something then they are innocent and mud is being thrown so why shouldn't you vote for them? If someone you don't like on the other side is getting accused of something they they guilty as sin and nobody in their right mind could vote for them.
Hang on, aren't the Republicans right on that? Firstly, it says 'accusation', not a conviction. Secondly, it also says 'consider', not 'definitely'.
Are you saying people should not look at the accusations for themselves and consider whether they are/may be true, and if they are true, whether it affects their vote?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
I don’t agree. Firstly, the law may be different in America, but here I think it’s been mentioned before that sexual harassment isn’t a crime, so you can’t actually be convicted for it. Secondly, I don’t think someone has be ‘convicted’ or found ‘guilty’ for you to not want to vote for them. Roy Moore hasn’t been found guilty per se, but I don’t think 8/9 women are lying, much like I don’t think Harvey Weinstein’s accusers are lying.
I don't think they're lying in those cases either, but that's not what the question says.
" I don’t think someone has be ‘convicted’ or found ‘guilty’ for you to not want to vote for them."
That's fair enough. But the word is 'consider'. Are you saying that if someone had an allegation against them, you would definitely not consider voting for them? That an allegation alone is enough ?
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
We're leaving the EU. That's clear.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
Turkey was a candidate to join; AIUI that means they had to meet a set of criteria, and then survive a vote of the existing members. Only then would they be 'joining'.
If I applied for a job and had an interview, I'm not joining that company until they offer me the position.
Sorry, but "see the posts by Alastair and myself" does not trump the unanimity of the rest of the world. Whom do we believe, out of Merkel and Erdogan quoted by the world's press behaving as if the accession talks were designed to lead to yer actual accession (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/04/turkey-hits-back-angela-merkel-eu-axe-accession-talks), or you? This is just magical thinking at its most bonkers.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
.
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
The Steven Gerrard defence
The Liverpool captain and England midfielder Steven Gerrard was cleared of affray today after a row over controlling the music playing in a bar.
Liverpool crown court heard that Marcus McGee, 34, was punched in the face by the footballer in a brawl at a bar in Southport last December.
Gerrard admitted hitting McGee three times but denied affray, saying he had been acting in self-defence as he thought the other man was about to strike him.
Hang on, aren't the Republicans right on that? Firstly, it says 'accusation', not a conviction. Secondly, it also says 'consider', not 'definitely'.
Are you saying people should not look at the accusations for themselves and consider whether they are/may be true, and if they are true, whether it affects their vote?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
I don’t agree. Firstly, the law may be different in America, but here I think it’s been mentioned before that sexual harassment isn’t a crime, so you can’t actually be convicted for it. Secondly, I don’t think someone has be ‘convicted’ or found ‘guilty’ for you to not want to vote for them. Roy Moore hasn’t been found guilty per se, but I don’t think 8/9 women are lying, much like I don’t think Harvey Weinstein’s accusers are lying.
I don't think they're lying in those cases either, but that's not what the question says.
" I don’t think someone has be ‘convicted’ or found ‘guilty’ for you to not want to vote for them."
That's fair enough. But the word is 'consider'. Are you saying that if someone had an allegation against them, you would definitely not consider voting for them? That an allegation alone is enough ?
The polling is tosh, Joe Biden would quickly disprove the theory if he was to run next up. Most of those Democrats either haven't understood the question or are lieing.
Hang on, aren't the Republicans right on that? Firstly, it says 'accusation', not a conviction. Secondly, it also says 'consider', not 'definitely'.
Are you saying people should not look at the accusations for themselves and consider whether they are/may be true, and if they are true, whether it affects their vote?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
I don’t agree. Firstly, the law may be different in America, but here I think it’s been mentioned before that sexual harassment isn’t a crime, so you can’t actually be convicted for it. Secondly, I don’t think someone has be ‘convicted’ or found ‘guilty’ for you to not want to vote for them. Roy Moore hasn’t been found guilty per se, but I don’t think 8/9 women are lying, much like I don’t think Harvey Weinstein’s accusers are lying.
I don't think they're lying in those cases either, but that's not what the question says.
" I don’t think someone has be ‘convicted’ or found ‘guilty’ for you to not want to vote for them."
That's fair enough. But the word is 'consider'. Are you saying that if someone had an allegation against them, you would definitely not consider voting for them? That an allegation alone is enough ?
I don’t think I would consider voting for them, tbh. Al Franken is an example of a politician only having one allegation against him atm, but if a similar circumstance emerged here, for any politician of any stripe, I wouldn’t vote for them.
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
The Steven Gerrard defence
The Liverpool captain and England midfielder Steven Gerrard was cleared of affray today after a row over controlling the music playing in a bar.
Liverpool crown court heard that Marcus McGee, 34, was punched in the face by the footballer in a brawl at a bar in Southport last December.
Gerrard admitted hitting McGee three times but denied affray, saying he had been acting in self-defence as he thought the other man was about to strike him.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
.
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
Yes, he supports them joining. That does not mean they were joining when he said those words; there were hurdles for them to jump before they were joining.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
We're leaving the EU. That's clear.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
Turkey was a candidate to join; AIUI that means they had to meet a set of criteria, and then survive a vote of the existing members. Only then would they be 'joining'.
If I applied for a job and had an interview, I'm not joining that company until they offer me the position.
Sorry, but "see the posts by Alastair and myself" does not trump the unanimity of the rest of the world. Whom do we believe, out of Merkel and Erdogan quoted by the world's press behaving as if the accession talks were designed to lead to yer actual accession (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/04/turkey-hits-back-angela-merkel-eu-axe-accession-talks), or you? This is just magical thinking at its most bonkers.
I've given a direct quotation from the time (which reflected general opinion across Europe at the time) which shows you are just plain wrong. A touch of humility and reflection on your part is in order.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
.
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
Yes, he supports them joining. That does not mean they were joining when he said those words; there were hurdles for them to jump before they were joining.
How is your average man on the street supposed to know he was kidding on ?
Hang on, aren't the Republicans right on that? Firstly, it says 'accusation', not a conviction. Secondly, it also says 'consider', not 'definitely'.
Are you saying people should not look at the accusations for themselves and consider whether they are/may be true, and if they are true, whether it affects their vote?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
I don’t agree. Firstly, the law may be different in America, but here I think it’s been mentioned before that sexual harassment isn’t a crime, so you can’t actually be convicted for it. Secondly, I don’t think someone has be ‘convicted’ or found ‘guilty’ for you to not want to vote for them. Roy Moore hasn’t been found guilty per se, but I don’t think 8/9 women are lying, much like I don’t think Harvey Weinstein’s accusers are lying.
I don't think they're lying in those cases either, but that's not what the question says.
" I don’t think someone has be ‘convicted’ or found ‘guilty’ for you to not want to vote for them."
That's fair enough. But the word is 'consider'. Are you saying that if someone had an allegation against them, you would definitely not consider voting for them? That an allegation alone is enough ?
The polling is tosh, Joe Biden would quickly disprove the theory if he was to run next up. Most of those Democrats either haven't understood the question or are lieing.
Actually there’s a debate among Dems now about Joe Biden on this, and I think it’s far from clear that he would even win the nomination, especially with the resistance towards ‘establishment Democrats’ going on. Joe Biden is unlikely to receive the kind of feminist cover that Bill Clinton got in the 90s, given that many of the resistance want Franken to resign.
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
The Steven Gerrard defence
The Liverpool captain and England midfielder Steven Gerrard was cleared of affray today after a row over controlling the music playing in a bar.
Liverpool crown court heard that Marcus McGee, 34, was punched in the face by the footballer in a brawl at a bar in Southport last December.
Gerrard admitted hitting McGee three times but denied affray, saying he had been acting in self-defence as he thought the other man was about to strike him.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
We're leaving the EU. That's clear.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
Turkey was a candidate to join; AIUI that means they had to meet a set of criteria, and then survive a vote of the existing members. Only then would they be 'joining'.
If I applied for a job and had an interview, I'm not joining that company until they offer me the position.
What I find fascinating whenever this subject comes up is that all the usual suspects frantically try to justify the literal wording. But they never, not once, try to argue, that the poster was for any other purpose than to stir up baseless fears of mass immigration of Muslims.
They're happy to accept that they were pandering to xenophobia but baulk at being described as liars. Curious.
The Farage poster was pretty revolting. I agree with you wholeheartedly on that.
Fear amongst people of mass Muslim immigration was not entirely baseless, though, largely as a result of Merkel's decision and the migration crisis generally, coupled with the concerns about Islamist terrorism and issues relating to integration more generally.
There are genuine concerns relating to these issues.
Where I do agree with you is that Farage was being wholly cynical in using Turkey and these fears in an utterly unscrupulous manner.
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
In fairness, in some cases you don't have a lot to work with....
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
We're leaving the EU. That's clear.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
Turkey was a candidate to join; AIUI that means they had to meet a set of criteria, and then survive a vote of the existing members. Only then would they be 'joining'.
If I applied for a job and had an interview, I'm not joining that company until they offer me the position.
Sorry, but "see the posts by Alastair and myself" does not trump the unanimity of the rest of the world. Whom do we believe, out of Merkel and Erdogan quoted by the world's press behaving as if the accession talks were designed to lead to yer actual accession (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/04/turkey-hits-back-angela-merkel-eu-axe-accession-talks), or you? This is just magical thinking at its most bonkers.
Read about the process, and tell me where I'm wrong.
I mean, from your link: "... after the German election frontrunners agreed that the EU should break off negotiations over future Turkish membership."
Negotiations over future membership.
If they were 'joining', there'd be minimal or no negotiations. They were nowhere near that stage yet.
Thanks, Jeremy, and all those youngsters who voted for him. The Winter Fuel Payment has just arrived in our bank account. Jolly decent of you. It should easily cover Sheekey's tonight.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
.
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
Yes, he supports them joining. That does not mean they were joining when he said those words; there were hurdles for them to jump before they were joining.
They were in the process of joining already. They were an official accession member state and it was our official policy that they should join. We were paying billions to make their accession easier, why were we doing that if it wasn't going to happen?
You are being ridiculous in your definition, that doesn't even meet the definition of the word. You are quintessentially saying its wrong to say someone is joining until they have joined already!
By your definition someone in November 2002 saying Poland was joining the EU on the basis of the on-going accession talks would have been a "xenophobic liar" despite the fact that 18 months later they had joined.
Accession negotiations are part of the process of joining, Turkey hadn't joined yet but was already joining.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
.
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
Yes, he supports them joining. That does not mean they were joining when he said those words; there were hurdles for them to jump before they were joining.
How is your average man on the street supposed to know he was kidding on ?
He wasn't 'kidding on'. A Turkey that met the requirements of the AC in order to start the process of joining the EU would be a very different beast, and I'd suggest one that was more in tune with us, and more in line with our interests. Which is one reason (amongst many) that they were making such slow progress on the AC.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
.
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
Yes, he supports them joining. That does not mean they were joining when he said those words; there were hurdles for them to jump before they were joining.
No they were already in accession talks which are the process for joining. If we didn't want them to continue to join the EU then we needed to suspend or terminate accession talks which happened AFTER the referendum.
Thanks, Jeremy, and all those youngsters who voted for him. The Winter Fuel Payment has just arrived in our bank account. Jolly decent of you. It should easily cover Sheekey's tonight.
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
The Steven Gerrard defence
The Liverpool captain and England midfielder Steven Gerrard was cleared of affray today after a row over controlling the music playing in a bar.
Liverpool crown court heard that Marcus McGee, 34, was punched in the face by the footballer in a brawl at a bar in Southport last December.
Gerrard admitted hitting McGee three times but denied affray, saying he had been acting in self-defence as he thought the other man was about to strike him.
Ole Ratko needed a Scouse jury (or Balkan equivalent).
In my now far distant days as a soccer referee, I once sent a player off for striking an opponent. Asked why he did it, he replied 'Because I thought he was going to hit me.'
It didn't get him off, but then he wasn't Steven Gerrard, and we weren't in Liverpool.
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
In fairness, in some cases you don't have a lot to work with....
Mladic being locked up is a good news story. What happened in Bosnia and to Bosnian Muslims in particular, in Srebrenica and elsewhere was utterly shameful. Europe did not cover itself in glory in how it dealt with it. I find the EU's claims that it has kept the peace in Europe a touch hard to take when in the 90's we had a vicious civil war and war crimes of the type that we saw in documentaries about the Nazis happening on our doorstep while civilised European countries acted with all the verve of a damp dishcloth.
Thanks, Jeremy, and all those youngsters who voted for him. The Winter Fuel Payment has just arrived in our bank account. Jolly decent of you. It should easily cover Sheekey's tonight.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
.
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
Yes, he supports them joining. That does not mean they were joining when he said those words; there were hurdles for them to jump before they were joining.
A Turkey that met all the EU accession criteria, ie. freedom of religion, liberal democracy, rule of law, free press, etc., would have been a triumph of the West.
The flip side of Cameron saying he supported Turkey joining the EU was that he also supported Turkey becoming a liberal, secular pro-West state.
Thanks, Jeremy, and all those youngsters who voted for him. The Winter Fuel Payment has just arrived in our bank account. Jolly decent of you. It should easily cover Sheekey's tonight.
Not if you opt for the Boillot Batard, it won't.
True!
I'm seeing Ink tonight - anyone know whether I should get drunk beforehand?
On Turkey, I think they might have been joining at around 2025 or so - certainly they were 'negotiating' when the referendum took place with 16 out of 35 'chapters' fulfilled.
They do not look to be joining now, but that is because of the purges/failed coup that took place starting 17th July 2017 which is after the EU ref on the timeline.
Prior to that accession was a possibility, though Vote Leave may have overstated the case somewhat in their literature.
Thanks, Jeremy, and all those youngsters who voted for him. The Winter Fuel Payment has just arrived in our bank account. Jolly decent of you. It should easily cover Sheekey's tonight.
Not if you opt for the Boillot Batard, it won't.
True!
I'm seeing Ink tonight - anyone know whether I should get drunk beforehand?
I might bump into you: I'm going to Labour of Love tonight (we're also booked for Ink in a few weeks' time).
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
In fairness, in some cases you don't have a lot to work with....
Mladic being locked up is a good news story. What happened in Bosnia and to Bosnian Muslims in particular, in Srebrenica and elsewhere was utterly shameful. Europe did not cover itself in glory in how it dealt with it. I find the EU's claims that it has kept the peace in Europe a touch hard to take when in the 90's we had a vicious civil war and war crimes of the type that we saw in documentaries about the Nazis happening on our doorstep while civilised European countries acted with all the verve of a damp dishcloth.
Indeed. Srebrenica was particularly shameful and a fairly indelible stain on the Dutch military. An EU army without the Brits. That'll be useful.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
.
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
Yes, he supports them joining. That does not mean they were joining when he said those words; there were hurdles for them to jump before they were joining.
How is your average man on the street supposed to know he was kidding on ?
He wasn't 'kidding on'. A Turkey that met the requirements of the AC in order to start the process of joining the EU would be a very different beast, and I'd suggest one that was more in tune with us, and more in line with our interests. Which is one reason (amongst many) that they were making such slow progress on the AC.
He never said they were currently 'joining'.
He wasn't kidding on but as PM he was issuing statements on Turkey supporting their membership right up until 3 weeks before the referendum.
Thanks, Jeremy, and all those youngsters who voted for him. The Winter Fuel Payment has just arrived in our bank account. Jolly decent of you. It should easily cover Sheekey's tonight.
Not if you opt for the Boillot Batard, it won't.
True!
I'm seeing Ink tonight - anyone know whether I should get drunk beforehand?
I might bump into you: I'm going to Labour of Love tonight (we're also booked for Ink in a few weeks' time).
I'll be the one in the Che Guevara t-shirt.
I want to get to see Labour of Love. Would appreciate a report.
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
The Steven Gerrard defence
The Liverpool captain and England midfielder Steven Gerrard was cleared of affray today after a row over controlling the music playing in a bar.
Liverpool crown court heard that Marcus McGee, 34, was punched in the face by the footballer in a brawl at a bar in Southport last December.
Gerrard admitted hitting McGee three times but denied affray, saying he had been acting in self-defence as he thought the other man was about to strike him.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
.
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
Yes, he supports them joining. That does not mean they were joining when he said those words; there were hurdles for them to jump before they were joining.
A Turkey that met all the EU accession criteria, ie. freedom of religion, liberal democracy, rule of law, free press, etc., would have been a triumph of the West.
The flip side of Cameron saying he supported Turkey joining the EU was that he also supported Turkey becoming a liberal, secular pro-West state.
Indeed that is all true. Same reason we began a process in the nineties to allow the joining of Eastern former Soviet states. Turkey was also in the formal joining process it just wasn't that far along yet but we were at the time of the referendum paying billions to smooth its ongoing joining process.
Would someone in 2001 who had said Poland was joining the EU have been a liar? Joining is a process and the acquis negotiations are part of the process, Turkey was in that process.
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
In fairness, in some cases you don't have a lot to work with....
Mladic being locked up is a good news story. What happened in Bosnia and to Bosnian Muslims in particular, in Srebrenica and elsewhere was utterly shameful. Europe did not cover itself in glory in how it dealt with it. I find the EU's claims that it has kept the peace in Europe a touch hard to take when in the 90's we had a vicious civil war and war crimes of the type that we saw in documentaries about the Nazis happening on our doorstep while civilised European countries acted with all the verve of a damp dishcloth.
Though with all the former Yugoslav states in various parts of accession talks, the EU will be ensuring democracy, human rights and rule of law in the future.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
.
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
Yes, he supports them joining. That does not mean they were joining when he said those words; there were hurdles for them to jump before they were joining.
They were in the process of joining already. They were an official accession member state and it was our official policy that they should join. We were paying billions to make their accession easier, why were we doing that if it wasn't going to happen?
You are being ridiculous in your definition, that doesn't even meet the definition of the word. You are quintessentially saying its wrong to say someone is joining until they have joined already!
By your definition someone in November 2002 saying Poland was joining the EU on the basis of the on-going accession talks would have been a "xenophobic liar" despite the fact that 18 months later they had joined.
Accession negotiations are part of the process of joining, Turkey hadn't joined yet but was already joining.
Negotiating to join is not joining, in the same way my having an interview for a job does not mean I am joining that company.
"To accede to the EU, Turkey must successfully complete negotiations with the European Commission on 33 of the 35 chapters of the acquis communautaire, the total body of EU law. (Two chapters do not require negotiation.) Afterwards, the member states must unanimously agree on granting Turkey membership to the European Union."
I'd argue that accede is synonymous with 'join' in the above, in the 'assume a position' definition.
And I have called no-one a 'xenophobic liar'. But I might suggest you read up a little more about this topic ...
I have never had so much concern about a conservative COE budget. He has no ability to inspire and I will be amazed if he does not make a horlicks of it.
Thanks, Jeremy, and all those youngsters who voted for him. The Winter Fuel Payment has just arrived in our bank account. Jolly decent of you. It should easily cover Sheekey's tonight.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
.
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
Yes, he supports them joining. That does not mean they were joining when he said those words; there were hurdles for them to jump before they were joining.
A Turkey that met all the EU accession criteria, ie. freedom of religion, liberal democracy, rule of law, free press, etc., would have been a triumph of the West.
The flip side of Cameron saying he supported Turkey joining the EU was that he also supported Turkey becoming a liberal, secular pro-West state.
Indeed that is all true. Same reason we began a process in the nineties to allow the joining of Eastern former Soviet states. Turkey was also in the formal joining process it just wasn't that far along yet but we were at the time of the referendum paying billions to smooth its ongoing joining process.
Would someone in 2001 who had said Poland was joining the EU have been a liar? Joining is a process and the acquis negotiations are part of the process, Turkey was in that process.
"Turkey was also in the formal joining process"
No, it was in the negotiation process. There was no certainty of them joining.
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
We're leaving the EU. That's clear.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
Turkey was a candidate to join; AIUI that means they had to meet a set of criteria, and then survive a vote of the existing members. Only then would they be 'joining'.
If I applied for a job and had an interview, I'm not joining that company until they offer me the position.
Sorry, but "see the posts by Alastair and myself" does not trump the unanimity of the rest of the world. Whom do we believe, out of Merkel and Erdogan quoted by the world's press behaving as if the accession talks were designed to lead to yer actual accession (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/04/turkey-hits-back-angela-merkel-eu-axe-accession-talks), or you? This is just magical thinking at its most bonkers.
Read about the process, and tell me where I'm wrong.
I mean, from your link: "... after the German election frontrunners agreed that the EU should break off negotiations over future Turkish membership."
Negotiations over future membership.
If they were 'joining', there'd be minimal or no negotiations. They were nowhere near that stage yet.
Your job interview analogy is preposterously loaded. Let's say there are on average 10 applicants for each job, it is baked in to the expression "job interview" that everyone expects and intends a 90% failure rate. There is no such intention or expectation in the context of EU membership applications. And on timescales, I voted (Remain, incidentally) on a 40 year timescale. It is no answer to concerns about Turkey to say Ah, but it doesn't count because it wasn't going to happen for another decade.
fullfact.org is not a primary source and like other "mythbusting" sites (snopes, etc.) it is just one long appeal to its own authority. I will believe the "stringing along theory" exists if I see an op ed from a reputable national newspaper advancing it. And that is just a test of its existence, not of whether it is also correct.
I have never had so much concern about a conservative COE budget. He has no ability to inspire and I will be amazed if he does not make a horlicks of it.
And this is nothing to do with Brexit
I believe the phrase you are looking for is "despite Brexit" ;-)
I have never had so much concern about a conservative COE budget. He has no ability to inspire and I will be amazed if he does not make a horlicks of it.
And this is nothing to do with Brexit
I think it will be pure boredom. Even the rabbit pulled out of the hat will look bored out of its tiny (thinking?) mind...
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
The Steven Gerrard defence
The Liverpool captain and England midfielder Steven Gerrard was cleared of affray today after a row over controlling the music playing in a bar.
Liverpool crown court heard that Marcus McGee, 34, was punched in the face by the footballer in a brawl at a bar in Southport last December.
Gerrard admitted hitting McGee three times but denied affray, saying he had been acting in self-defence as he thought the other man was about to strike him.
It is unfortunate that a case caught entirely on video has taken so long for a decision to be made. It looks like the sort of case usually dealt with on an undertaking the next morning.
I have never had so much concern about a conservative COE budget. He has no ability to inspire and I will be amazed if he does not make a horlicks of it.
And this is nothing to do with Brexit
I believe the phrase you are looking for is "despite Brexit" ;-)
Come to think of it, if you can persuade yourself that Turkey was not joining the EU you might as well also pretend that the UK is not leaving it, the evidence being about equally strong in both cases. Problem solved.
We're leaving the EU. That's clear.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
Turkey was a candidate to join; AIUI that means they had to meet a set of criteria, and then survive a vote of the existing members. Only then would they be 'joining'.
If I applied for a job and had an interview, I'm not joining that company until they offer me the position.
Sorry, but "see the posts by Alastair and myself" does not trump the unanimity of the rest of the world. Whom do we believe, out of Merkel and Erdogan quoted by the world's press behaving as if the accession talks were designed to lead to yer actual accession (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/04/turkey-hits-back-angela-merkel-eu-axe-accession-talks), or you? This is just magical thinking at its most bonkers.
Read about the process, and tell me where I'm wrong.
I mean, from your link: "... after the German election frontrunners agreed that the EU should break off negotiations over future Turkish membership."
Negotiations over future membership.
If they were 'joining', there'd be minimal or no negotiations. They were nowhere near that stage yet.
Your job interview analogy is preposterously loaded. Let's say there are on average 10 applicants for each job, it is baked in to the expression "job interview" that everyone expects and intends a 90% failure rate. There is no such intention or expectation in the context of EU membership applications. And on timescales, I voted (Remain, incidentally) on a 40 year timescale. It is no answer to concerns about Turkey to say Ah, but it doesn't count because it wasn't going to happen for another decade.
fullfact.org is not a primary source and like other "mythbusting" sites (snopes, etc.) it is just one long appeal to its own authority. I will believe the "stringing along theory" exists if I see an op ed from a reputable national newspaper advancing it. And that is just a test of its existence, not of whether it is also correct.
The point is that in 40 years if it followed the process Turkey would be exactly the kind of country you'd want in the EU,
His defence argument (or one of them) was interesting. His actions were apparently taken to prevent a repeat of the genocide inflicted upon the Serbs during WWII.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
The Steven Gerrard defence
The Liverpool captain and England midfielder Steven Gerrard was cleared of affray today after a row over controlling the music playing in a bar.
Liverpool crown court heard that Marcus McGee, 34, was punched in the face by the footballer in a brawl at a bar in Southport last December.
Gerrard admitted hitting McGee three times but denied affray, saying he had been acting in self-defence as he thought the other man was about to strike him.
It is unfortunate that a case caught entirely on video has taken so long for a decision to be made. It looks like the sort of case usually dealt with on an undertaking the next morning.
It seems crazy. Initially it was claimed it was taking so long because they were tracking down two guys who were witnesses, but they came forward weeks ago.
Comments
Afterwards, the CEO said to me that I didn't seem very interested in the project, eh? I asked him sharply (nothing to lose) if he wanted someone to deliver the project, or someone who enjoyed meetings. "Hmm, good answer," he said, and I got the job.
Are you saying people should not look at the accusations for themselves and consider whether they are/may be true, and if they are true, whether it affects their vote?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
If you want to call anyone lying for stating British government policy as fact then accuse the PM, not a political campaign.
(The sleeping, that is, rather than the dislike of meetings)
Leavers willingness to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment on baseless scare stories in the referendum campaign is a large part of why Brexit is now floundering.
When that suspension took place no serious commentator anywhere said "this is just a formality because the EU was never going to admit Turkey anyway"; it is a bit of particularly infantile magical thinking, exclusive to PB, that the Turks were being strung along, with the revolting subtext that this is absolutely OK behaviour because after all, they are only Turks.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/camerons-support-for-turkeys-eu-membership-should-worry-us-all/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3603214/Turkey-course-join-EU-year-3000-insists-David-Cameron.html
https://fullfact.org/europe/turkey-likely-join-eu/
"Is Turkey likely to join the EU?
In brief: Turkey is a candidate to join the EU. But it’s unlikely to join any time soon. There are tensions to be resolved over Cyprus before aspects of the negotiation can even be opened, and the EU has concerns over Turkey’s human rights record. If and when the negotiations finish, Turkey must get approval to join from each existing EU member. Some are opposed to, or planning to hold a referendum on, Turkish membership. Support for membership among the Turkish population has declined since 2010. "
"Other EU members have strongly opposed Turkish membership. Both France and Austria will put the question of Turkish accession to a referendum, so Turkey would need to get approval from the popular vote in each country.
This would make vetoes from those countries likely, as they are amongst the more Turkey-sceptic members."
In many ways JC adheres to a higher standard, for example anyone looking lustfully at a woman comitting adultery in their heart.
Turkey was talking about joining the EU - i.e. they were negotiating. Before they could join, they had to meet many criteria. They had been working towards meeting these criteria for years and had made virtually no progress.
A Turkey that had met all the chapters of the AC, and was therefore in a position to join the EU, would be a very different country to the one they were at that start of the process, or are now. Which is sort of the point of the AC. And heir progress towards them was glacial.
That is leaving aside the political problems they would have faced to join: not just internally, but also within the EU, with some states looking very likely to block their accession.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/us/politics/al-franken-sexual-harassment-groping-forcible-kissing.html
Furthermore recent polling shows that while 53% of Democrats believe the Bill Clinton allegations have credibility, that number is in single digits for Republicans regarding Trump, a group who also happen to not believe the O’Reilly allegations.
https://jalopnik.com/uber-hit-with-8-9-million-fine-in-colorado-for-allowin-1820641317
Another $9m fine, this time for the “administrative oversight” of allowing drivers with felony DUI convictions, felony assault convictions, legally suspended and medically cancelled driving licences to work for them...
Sorry but comparing current polling of Bill Clinton (now an historical figure) with current polling of Trump (actually President today) is just absurd. You need to compare polling of Clinton that was contemporary at the time of the allegations.
‘guilty’ for you to not want to vote for them. Roy Moore hasn’t been found guilty per se, but I don’t think 8/9 women are lying, much like I don’t think Harvey Weinstein’s accusers are lying.
You know the Tory party better than me. But I wonder. She may have been afraid of this. But that's another matter. And PM's - if they use their office intelligently - have a lot of power. She was hidebound in her own mind and had never had to build any sort of coalition or know how to prepare the ground for an elegant retreat or a sidestep or how to speak hard truths etc. She was, in short, promoted way beyond her level of competence and the country is now suffering as a result.
Turkey was not joining. That is also clear: see the posts by Alastair and myself.
Turkey was a candidate to join; AIUI that means they had to meet a set of criteria, and then survive a vote of the existing members. Only then would they be 'joining'.
If I applied for a job and had an interview, I'm not joining that company until they offer me the position.
Try quoting what Cameron said before the Referendum? He was abundantly clear Turkey should join.
Amazed* he's not a free man on that basis.
*Not amazed, just in case there are any literalists about.
Sorry, I don’t buy into your argument that comparing Bill Clinton’s polling with Trump is absurd. What is relevant is what Democrats and Republicans now think, not what they thought twenty years ago over a presidency which we can’t do anything about.
They're happy to accept that they were pandering to xenophobia but baulk at being described as liars. Curious.
The likes of Bill Cash, John Redwood, IDS, and JRM won’t countenance it.
Hell some of them want Hard/WTO Brexit over anything else.
If someone you like on your side is getting accused of something then they are innocent and mud is being thrown so why shouldn't you vote for them?
If someone you don't like on the other side is getting accused of something they they guilty as sin and nobody in their right mind could vote for them.
Plus ca change
" I don’t think someone has be ‘convicted’ or found ‘guilty’ for you to not want to vote for them."
That's fair enough. But the word is 'consider'. Are you saying that if someone had an allegation against them, you would definitely not consider voting for them? That an allegation alone is enough ?
"David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK"
The Liverpool captain and England midfielder Steven Gerrard was cleared of affray today after a row over controlling the music playing in a bar.
Liverpool crown court heard that Marcus McGee, 34, was punched in the face by the footballer in a brawl at a bar in Southport last December.
Gerrard admitted hitting McGee three times but denied affray, saying he had been acting in self-defence as he thought the other man was about to strike him.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2009/jul/24/steven-gerrard-verdict-affray
Fear amongst people of mass Muslim immigration was not entirely baseless, though, largely as a result of Merkel's decision and the migration crisis generally, coupled with the concerns about Islamist terrorism and issues relating to integration more generally.
There are genuine concerns relating to these issues.
Where I do agree with you is that Farage was being wholly cynical in using Turkey and these fears in an utterly unscrupulous manner.
I mean, from your link: "... after the German election frontrunners agreed that the EU should break off negotiations over future Turkish membership."
Negotiations over future membership.
If they were 'joining', there'd be minimal or no negotiations. They were nowhere near that stage yet.
You are being ridiculous in your definition, that doesn't even meet the definition of the word. You are quintessentially saying its wrong to say someone is joining until they have joined already!
By your definition someone in November 2002 saying Poland was joining the EU on the basis of the on-going accession talks would have been a "xenophobic liar" despite the fact that 18 months later they had joined.
Accession negotiations are part of the process of joining, Turkey hadn't joined yet but was already joining.
It is my intention to win the lottery tonight.
I have submitted my application to win the lottery tonight.
I would like to thank PBers for confirmation that I am winning the lottery tonight.
Right up until the balls drop...
He never said they were currently 'joining'.
It didn't get him off, but then he wasn't Steven Gerrard, and we weren't in Liverpool.
A Turkey that met all the EU accession criteria, ie. freedom of religion, liberal democracy, rule of law, free press, etc., would have been a triumph of the West.
The flip side of Cameron saying he supported Turkey joining the EU was that he also supported Turkey becoming a liberal, secular pro-West state.
They do not look to be joining now, but that is because of the purges/failed coup that took place starting 17th July 2017 which is after the EU ref on the timeline.
Prior to that accession was a possibility, though Vote Leave may have overstated the case somewhat in their literature.
Slippery stuff.
Although I fear we have not heard the last of the tensions in that part of the world.
I want to get to see Labour of Love. Would appreciate a report.
Would someone in 2001 who had said Poland was joining the EU have been a liar? Joining is a process and the acquis negotiations are part of the process, Turkey was in that process.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/933296087586263040
"To accede to the EU, Turkey must successfully complete negotiations with the European Commission on 33 of the 35 chapters of the acquis communautaire, the total body of EU law. (Two chapters do not require negotiation.) Afterwards, the member states must unanimously agree on granting Turkey membership to the European Union."
I'd argue that accede is synonymous with 'join' in the above, in the 'assume a position' definition.
And I have called no-one a 'xenophobic liar'. But I might suggest you read up a little more about this topic ...
And this is nothing to do with Brexit
No, it was in the negotiation process. There was no certainty of them joining.
fullfact.org is not a primary source and like other "mythbusting" sites (snopes, etc.) it is just one long appeal to its own authority. I will believe the "stringing along theory" exists if I see an op ed from a reputable national newspaper advancing it. And that is just a test of its existence, not of whether it is also correct.
NEW THREAD