If you want to know how Leave won you need to watch this programme
Leave won?!
You could at least have put up a spoiler alert!
Titanic did not win multiple Oscars as people did not know how it ended, it is how you tell the story that matters
Films must have been really shit that year if that won multiple oscars.
Oscar tip: 25% of the 8000 odd Academy members have no specific category like acting, sound etc to nominate towards, just Best Picture. This group comprise producers, film company executives and marketing executives- explains the preponderance of big successful movies or cleverly marketed ones in this category.
If you want to know how Leave won you need to watch this programme
Leave won?!
You could at least have put up a spoiler alert!
Titanic did not win multiple Oscars as people did not know how it ended, it is how you tell the story that matters
Films must have been really shit that year if that won multiple oscars.
It was a truly dreadful film but so much money was sunk into it that it had to be hyped unto success.
It was actually a very clever film - 'Romeo & Juliet on a Boat' - the commercial success was down to teenage girls going back to see it again....and again - unlike the usual 'disaster blockbuster' which climaxes in the first weekend and rapidly tails off as boys have seen it already.....on Titanic the money kept rolling in, months after it normally would have stopped.
.....There is however little doubt that its commercial success led to its aesthetic success.
I spoke once to someone who worked on the film (and won an Oscar for it) - in Mexico they christened the huge set "The Funnels of Doom'' so convinced were they that they were making a commercial flop.
Two great quotes - the success among teenage girls was down to Leo being 'the perfect boyfriend who dies before he can disappoint you' - and Cameron (who was arguably more anti-British than the Nazis in their wartime epic) was "faithful to the details but promiscuous with the facts"
I'm about half way through - jolly entertaining - appears to be treating Cummings & Elliot sympathetically....others (some a lot) less so - Banks & Farage won't like it at all....nor will most MPs....
They won't, but you can't keep voting for a system that persistently craps on you.
I understand that, but I also understand that these angry folk with shit prospects are not going to be happy with what they get. Tories shouldn`t count on their votes continuing.
Plenty of unemployed and working class Leavers voted Leave in 2016, then for Corbyn in 2017, it was an anti establishment double whammy. Few are Tories
Why should the EU even have an ambassador to the US, or any country for that matter?
And why would the Obama administration upgrade it from an 'International Organisation' (which it clearly is) to a 'member state' (which it clearly isn't)?
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
Thanks for the latter link, but is's also rather dated.
As for the Holy See, your link shows it has those rights not through the usual reasons, e.g. a population and territory (the See is not the Vatican), but mostly because it always has had those rights.
IMV the Holy See is a religious entity and has no territory. It should not have ambassadors.
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them (BTW I am not saying you are doing this).
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
Thanks for the latter link, but is's also rather dated.
As for the Holy See, your link shows it has those rights not through the usual reasons, e.g. a population and territory (the See is not the Vatican), but mostly because it always has had those rights.
IMV the Holy See is a religious entity and has no territory. It should not have ambassadors.
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them (BTW I am not saying you are doing this).
The Vatican's soft power - of having a lot of self-identifying Catholics in the US? Versus lots of former-Europeans-but-now-self-identifying-as-Americans?
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
Thanks for the latter link, but is's also rather dated.
As for the Holy See, your link shows it has those rights not through the usual reasons, e.g. a population and territory (the See is not the Vatican), but mostly because it always has had those rights.
IMV the Holy See is a religious entity and has no territory. It should not have ambassadors.
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them (BTW I am not saying you are doing this).
The Vatican's soft power - of having a lot of self-identifying Catholics in the US? Versus lots of former-Europeans-but-now-self-identifying-as-Americans?
I’m not sure you understand this whole diplomacy thing.
Why should the EU even have an ambassador to the US, or any country for that matter?
Why should the Holy See have an ambassador to the US?
Isn't the Holy See a country?
AIUI no. The pope is in charge of both the Vatican City and the Holy See, but they are distinct entities.
(Such arguments against the Holy See having ambassadors could be mostly solved by renaming them the ambassadors for the Vatican City. And then being treated with the same importance as the ambassadors for Andorra or Saint Vincent).
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
Thanks for the latter link, but is's also rather dated.
As for the Holy See, your link shows it has those rights not through the usual reasons, e.g. a population and territory (the See is not the Vatican), but mostly because it always has had those rights.
IMV the Holy See is a religious entity and has no territory. It should not have ambassadors.
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them (BTW I am not saying you are doing this).
The Vatican's soft power - of having a lot of self-identifying Catholics in the US? Versus lots of former-Europeans-but-now-self-identifying-as-Americans?
Why are members of other 'self-identifying' religious groups not get given similar representation? Say protestants, or the other orthodox churches that have distinct leaders / leadership groups?
Why should the EU even have an ambassador to the US, or any country for that matter?
Why should the Holy See have an ambassador to the US?
Isn't the Holy See a country?
AIUI no. The pope is in charge of both the Vatican City and the Holy See, but they are distinct entities.
(Such arguments against the Holy See having ambassadors could be mostly solved by renaming them the ambassadors for the Vatican City. And then being treated with the same importance as the ambassadors for Andorra or Saint Vincent).
THe one derives, ex officio, from the other.
Technically the UK has no embassies to or from it. The Court of St James, on the other hand, has a great many.
And as the Vatican is a legally recognised state, albeit one which has many government functions discharged on its behalf by Italy, and the Holy See is the government of it, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Edit - Why are members of other 'self-identifying' religious groups not get given similar representation? Say protestants, or the other orthodox churches that have distinct leaders / leadership groups? Because the Vatican is a country, and Canterbury Cathedral Close isn't.
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
Thanks for the latter link, but is's also rather dated.
As for the Holy See, your link shows it has those rights not through the usual reasons, e.g. a population and territory (the See is not the Vatican), but mostly because it always has had those rights.
IMV the Holy See is a religious entity and has no territory. It should not have ambassadors.
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them (BTW I am not saying you are doing this).
The Vatican's soft power - of having a lot of self-identifying Catholics in the US? Versus lots of former-Europeans-but-now-self-identifying-as-Americans?
I’m not sure you understand this whole diplomacy thing.
No, just the politics of diplomacy thing.
And for those who were doubting the UK still has soft power, you have ponder on who might have been holding the President's hand for this EU downgrade....
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
Thanks for the latter link, but is's also rather dated.
As for the Holy See, your link shows it has those rights not through the usual reasons, e.g. a population and territory (the See is not the Vatican), but mostly because it always has had those rights.
IMV the Holy See is a religious entity and has no territory. It should not have ambassadors.
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them (BTW I am not saying you are doing this).
The Vatican's soft power - of having a lot of self-identifying Catholics in the US? Versus lots of former-Europeans-but-now-self-identifying-as-Americans?
Why are members of other 'self-identifying' religious groups not get given similar representation? Say protestants, or the other orthodox churches that have distinct leaders / leadership groups?
Well, if ISIS had been successful in getting the Caliphate off the ground.....
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them
In the US the Holy See has an Apostolic Nuncio, while the US has an Ambassador to the Holy See, Callista Gingrich.
Clearly the EU and US should have bilateral relations - the reaction is to the pearl clutching to the EU's demotion to "international Organisation" from 'Member State".
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
Thanks for the latter link, but is's also rather dated.
As for the Holy See, your link shows it has those rights not through the usual reasons, e.g. a population and territory (the See is not the Vatican), but mostly because it always has had those rights.
IMV the Holy See is a religious entity and has no territory. It should not have ambassadors.
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them (BTW I am not saying you are doing this).
The Vatican's soft power - of having a lot of self-identifying Catholics in the US? Versus lots of former-Europeans-but-now-self-identifying-as-Americans?
I’m not sure you understand this whole diplomacy thing.
No, just the politics of diplomacy thing.
And for those who were doubting the UK still has soft power, you have ponder on who might have been holding the President's hand for this EU downgrade....
It’s a game the EU have been playing for ages, getting themselves into meetings such as the G7. Rather amusing to see someone push back on them for a change.
A very Trump thing to do, especially given that the decision he’s reversing was made in the last weeks of his predecessor’s term of office. As you say, I wonder which friendly country might have given him a nudge in that direction?
Why should the EU even have an ambassador to the US, or any country for that matter?
Why should the Holy See have an ambassador to the US?
Isn't the Holy See a country?
AIUI no. The pope is in charge of both the Vatican City and the Holy See, but they are distinct entities.
(Such arguments against the Holy See having ambassadors could be mostly solved by renaming them the ambassadors for the Vatican City. And then being treated with the same importance as the ambassadors for Andorra or Saint Vincent).
THe one derives, ex officio, from the other.
Technically the UK has no embassies to or from it. The Court of St James, on the other hand, has a great many.
And as the Vatican is a legally recognised state, albeit one which has many government functions discharged on its behalf by Italy, and the Holy See is the government of it, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Edit - Why are members of other 'self-identifying' religious groups not get given similar representation? Say protestants, or the other orthodox churches that have distinct leaders / leadership groups? Because the Vatican is a country, and Canterbury Cathedral Close isn't.
Is that actually the case? See the links posted earlier.
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
Thanks for the latter link, but is's also rather dated.
As for the Holy See, your link shows it has those rights not through the usual reasons, e.g. a population and territory (the See is not the Vatican), but mostly because it always has had those rights.
IMV the Holy See is a religious entity and has no territory. It should not have ambassadors.
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them (BTW I am not saying you are doing this).
The Vatican's soft power - of having a lot of self-identifying Catholics in the US? Versus lots of former-Europeans-but-now-self-identifying-as-Americans?
I’m not sure you understand this whole diplomacy thing.
No, just the politics of diplomacy thing.
And for those who were doubting the UK still has soft power, you have ponder on who might have been holding the President's hand for this EU downgrade....
Are you suggesting the UK is pulling Putin's strings?
Despite the odd cartoon caricature, all credit must go to Graham (a Remain voter, though neither side emerged well) for achieving the impossible — making something Brexit-related enjoyable. Cumberbatch mastered Cummings’ disdain and soft northeast accent, though it occasionally drifted into soft Scouse. John Heffernan as Matthew Elliott was a highlight as was Richard Goulding’s mimicry of Boris Johnson. Lee Boardman provided splendid comic relief as a boorish Arron Banks swigging lager from a can. And did you notice that in neither Leave’s nor Remain’s campaign was there a single mention of the EU divorce bill or the Irish border? This was an accurate (and painful to many) reminder that while Leave bent the rules, Remain was complacent, lacklustre and fatally out of touch with a forgotten demographic.
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
Thanks for the latter link, but is's also rather dated.
As for the Holy See, your link shows it has those rights not through the usual reasons, e.g. a population and territory (the See is not the Vatican), but mostly because it always has had those rights.
IMV the Holy See is a religious entity and has no territory. It should not have ambassadors.
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them (BTW I am not saying you are doing this).
The Vatican's soft power - of having a lot of self-identifying Catholics in the US? Versus lots of former-Europeans-but-now-self-identifying-as-Americans?
Why are members of other 'self-identifying' religious groups not get given similar representation? Say protestants, or the other orthodox churches that have distinct leaders / leadership groups?
Well, if ISIS had been successful in getting the Caliphate off the ground.....
Exactly. Religious groups having such international representation (as opposed to states) is a very rocky road.
Why should the EU even have an ambassador to the US, or any country for that matter?
Why should the Holy See have an ambassador to the US?
Isn't the Holy See a country?
AIUI no. The pope is in charge of both the Vatican City and the Holy See, but they are distinct entities.
(Such arguments against the Holy See having ambassadors could be mostly solved by renaming them the ambassadors for the Vatican City. And then being treated with the same importance as the ambassadors for Andorra or Saint Vincent).
THe one derives, ex officio, from the other.
Technically the UK has no embassies to or from it. The Court of St James, on the other hand, has a great many.
And as the Vatican is a legally recognised state, albeit one which has many government functions discharged on its behalf by Italy, and the Holy See is the government of it, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Edit - Why are members of other 'self-identifying' religious groups not get given similar representation? Say protestants, or the other orthodox churches that have distinct leaders / leadership groups? Because the Vatican is a country, and Canterbury Cathedral Close isn't.
Is that actually the case? See the links posted earlier.
Why should the EU even have an ambassador to the US, or any country for that matter?
Why should the Holy See have an ambassador to the US?
Isn't the Holy See a country?
AIUI no. The pope is in charge of both the Vatican City and the Holy See, but they are distinct entities.
(Such arguments against the Holy See having ambassadors could be mostly solved by renaming them the ambassadors for the Vatican City. And then being treated with the same importance as the ambassadors for Andorra or Saint Vincent).
THe one derives, ex officio, from the other.
Technically the UK has no embassies to or from it. The Court of St James, on the other hand, has a great many.
And as the Vatican is a legally recognised state, albeit one which has many government functions discharged on its behalf by Italy, and the Holy See is the government of it, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Edit - Why are members of other 'self-identifying' religious groups not get given similar representation? Say protestants, or the other orthodox churches that have distinct leaders / leadership groups? Because the Vatican is a country, and Canterbury Cathedral Close isn't.
Is that actually the case? See the links posted earlier.
Is what actually the case?
That "THe one derives, ex officio, from the other."
And your point ignores that the Holy See is much more than the government of the Vatican; especially in terms of the people it 'represents' around the world. If a representative of the Holy See goes into a meeting and represents the interests of the Vatican City and its tiny population, fair enough. And it should be treated with the importance of a tiny state. It he deigns to represent worldwide Catholics, that's wrong.
The Holy See, aka the Pope, as the government of the Vatican, has the right to send and receive ambassadors.
The Church of England is not an independent state. It does not have the right to send and receive ambassadors.
However, the Head of State of the UK - who by coinicidence is head of the second largest church in the UK - can send and receive ambassadors on behalf of said UK. And does.
The EU is not a country, and does not have a government. Therefore, there is no way it can legally send and receive full embassies.
It is slightly irritating that after all these assurances it is not a country and wasn't going to become one that they are getting their knickers in a twist because Trump has taken them at their word.
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them
In the US the Holy See has an Apostolic Nuncio, while the US has an Ambassador to the Holy See, Callista Gingrich.
Clearly the EU and US should have bilateral relations - the reaction is to the pearl clutching to the EU's demotion to "international Organisation" from 'Member State".
Personally I'm very unflustered about this demotion, as I am about the EU having such representation in the first place. Though I can understand why Europhobes get so het up about the latter.
I do wonder how long Trump's 'policies' will last; I can see many being reversed when he's out of power; perhaps just because he was the one who implemented them ...
Why should the EU even have an ambassador to the US, or any country for that matter?
Why should the Holy See have an ambassador to the US?
Isn't the Holy See a country?
AIUI no. The pope is in charge of both the Vatican City and the Holy See, but they are distinct entities.
(Such arguments against the Holy See having ambassadors could be mostly solved by renaming them the ambassadors for the Vatican City. And then being treated with the same importance as the ambassadors for Andorra or Saint Vincent).
THe one derives, ex officio, from the other.
Technically the UK has no embassies to or from it. The Court of St James, on the other hand, has a great many.
And as the Vatican is a legally recognised state, albeit one which has many government functions discharged on its behalf by Italy, and the Holy See is the government of it, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Edit - Why are members of other 'self-identifying' religious groups not get given similar representation? Say protestants, or the other orthodox churches that have distinct leaders / leadership groups? Because the Vatican is a country, and Canterbury Cathedral Close isn't.
Is that actually the case? See the links posted earlier.
Is what actually the case?
That "THe one derives, ex officio, from the other."
And your point ignores that the Holy See is much more than the government of the Vatican; especially in terms of the people it 'represents' around the world. If a representative of the Holy See goes into a meeting and represents the interests of the Vatican City and its tiny population, fair enough. And it should be treated with the importance of a tiny state. It he deigns to represent worldwide Catholics, that's wrong.
And of course it's the latter.
How do you know that?
There are 594 citizens of the Vatican. The majority of them live outside the Vatican. Can you tell me how often the embassies have intervened for others, not citizens of the Vatican?
And since (again) the EU often shoves its oar in outside its legal areas of competence to give its views on a very wide range of subjects, I'm not sure whether this isn't a further distinction without a difference.
Despite the odd cartoon caricature, all credit must go to Graham (a Remain voter, though neither side emerged well) for achieving the impossible — making something Brexit-related enjoyable. Cumberbatch mastered Cummings’ disdain and soft northeast accent, though it occasionally drifted into soft Scouse. John Heffernan as Matthew Elliott was a highlight as was Richard Goulding’s mimicry of Boris Johnson. Lee Boardman provided splendid comic relief as a boorish Arron Banks swigging lager from a can. And did you notice that in neither Leave’s nor Remain’s campaign was there a single mention of the EU divorce bill or the Irish border? This was an accurate (and painful to many) reminder that while Leave bent the rules, Remain was complacent, lacklustre and fatally out of touch with a forgotten demographic.
I think that's a fair summary. I thought Mangan's piece in the Guardian a touch petulant. I've always felt that the official Remain campaign was smug and London-centred. I couldn't believe Aaron Banks, surely no-one would be as boorish as he was when he was first introduced. I liked the way the official Leave campaign deliberately left Farage and Co to do the 'nasty' stuff'. However what remained (sorry) with me was that Cummings used modern techniques and consequent information available to him a great deal better than Remain, and while I suspect that traditional door-knocking and leafletting techniques will still be with us for a while, a lot more attention is going to be paid by all campaign managers to what Cummings and Leave did with Facebook etc. The genie's out of the bottle and won't be put back.
Secondary thoughts; we read a lot on here about party memberships; if you don't need as many (any?) door-knockers, do you need as many door-knockers? In a 'green' age, are voters actually going to be angered by cutting down Amazonian forests and pushing them through letter boxes? Are you going to use 'members' primarily as sources of finance? Or do you need that sort of finance, as opposed to a few big donors?
The Holy See, aka the Pope, as the government of the Vatican, has the right to send and receive ambassadors.
(Snip)
Which would be fair enough. Except - uniquely - those ambassadors do not just represent that tiny piece of land and its negligible population.
e.g.:
"The work with the Holy See is unique, because we are not only dealing with a sovereign country (Vatican City State) but also with a global faith (the Roman Catholic Church, with 1.3bn adherents including in the UK)."
That's hard to defend when other faiths don't get similar treatment. And why just faiths?
If you make an exception for the Holy See, then you can make one for the EU, as extra representation for the second largest economy in the world? If you make exceptions in one case, you can make them in others.
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them
In the US the Holy See has an Apostolic Nuncio, while the US has an Ambassador to the Holy See, Callista Gingrich.
Clearly the EU and US should have bilateral relations - the reaction is to the pearl clutching to the EU's demotion to "international Organisation" from 'Member State".
Personally I'm very unflustered about this demotion, as I am about the EU having such representation in the first place. Though I can understand why Europhobes get so het up about the latter.
I do wonder how long Trump's 'policies' will last; I can see many being reversed when he's out of power; perhaps just because he was the one who implemented them ...
The Americans can do what they want, but to downgrade the EU ambassador's status and not inform him is a pretty big lapse of protocol and not particularly friendly.
Why should the EU even have an ambassador to the US, or any country for that matter?
Why should the Holy See have an ambassador to the US?
Isn't the Holy See a country?
AIUI no. The pope is in charge of both the Vatican City and the Holy See, but they are distinct entities.
(Such arguments against the Holy See having ambassadors could be mostly solved by renaming them the ambassadors for the Vatican City. And then being treated with the same importance as the ambassadors for Andorra or Saint Vincent).
THe one derives, ex officio, from the other.
Technically the UK has no embassies to or from it. The Court of St James, on the other hand, has a great many.
And as the Vatican is a legally recognised state, albeit one which has many government functions discharged on its behalf by Italy, and the Holy See is the government of it, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Edit - Why are members of other 'self-identifying' religious groups not get given similar representation? Say protestants, or the other orthodox churches that have distinct leaders / leadership groups? Because the Vatican is a country, and Canterbury Cathedral Close isn't.
Is that actually the case? See the links posted earlier.
Is what actually the case?
That "THe one derives, ex officio, from the other."
And your point ignores that the Holy See is much more than the government of the Vatican; especially in terms of the people it 'represents' around the world. If a representative of the Holy See goes into a meeting and represents the interests of the Vatican City and its tiny population, fair enough. And it should be treated with the importance of a tiny state. It he deigns to represent worldwide Catholics, that's wrong.
And of course it's the latter.
How do you know that?
There are 594 citizens of the Vatican. The majority of them live outside the Vatican. Can you tell me how often the embassies have intervened for others, not citizens of the Vatican?
(Snip)
As I just posted, the UK officially says the following:
"The work with the Holy See is unique, because we are not only dealing with a sovereign country (Vatican City State) but also with a global faith (the Roman Catholic Church, with 1.3bn adherents including in the UK).""
The US also makes it clear they work on global issues with the Holy See.
Despite the odd cartoon caricature, all credit must go to Graham (a Remain voter, though neither side emerged well) for achieving the impossible — making something Brexit-related enjoyable. Cumberbatch mastered Cummings’ disdain and soft northeast accent, though it occasionally drifted into soft Scouse. John Heffernan as Matthew Elliott was a highlight as was Richard Goulding’s mimicry of Boris Johnson. Lee Boardman provided splendid comic relief as a boorish Arron Banks swigging lager from a can. And did you notice that in neither Leave’s nor Remain’s campaign was there a single mention of the EU divorce bill or the Irish border? This was an accurate (and painful to many) reminder that while Leave bent the rules, Remain was complacent, lacklustre and fatally out of touch with a forgotten demographic.
However what remained (sorry) with me was that Cummings used modern techniques and consequent information available to him a great deal better than Remain
And when Obama did it 4 years before it was hailed as 'the new politics' and a 'smart way of reaching previous non-voters.'
When Cummings did it you get reviews like the one in the Guardian.....
As I just posted, the UK officially says the following:
"The work with the Holy See is unique, because we are not only dealing with a sovereign country (Vatican City State) but also with a global faith (the Roman Catholic Church, with 1.3bn adherents including in the UK).""
The US also makes it clear they work on global issues with the Holy See.
And the Queen's ambassadors will represent our national views on a wide range of issues, including ones to do with the Commonwealth. Is that wrong as well? Incidentally arguably the answer is yes. But it still happens.
Unless you can show that they actually intervene on behalf of Catholics who are non-citizens I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
I'm just not sure why everyone's getting so het up about this.
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them
In the US the Holy See has an Apostolic Nuncio, while the US has an Ambassador to the Holy See, Callista Gingrich.
Clearly the EU and US should have bilateral relations - the reaction is to the pearl clutching to the EU's demotion to "international Organisation" from 'Member State".
Personally I'm very unflustered about this demotion, as I am about the EU having such representation in the first place. Though I can understand why Europhobes get so het up about the latter.
I do wonder how long Trump's 'policies' will last; I can see many being reversed when he's out of power; perhaps just because he was the one who implemented them ...
The Americans can do what they want, but to downgrade the EU ambassador's status and not inform him is a pretty big lapse of protocol and not particularly friendly.
Agree with that. But that's the mark of the man at the top.
The US is being intensely damaged by the Trump presidency. And many Americans do not care. It will take an exceptionally good president to undo the damage he is causing, yet alone the rifts in American society and politics that enabled his rise.
Despite the odd cartoon caricature, all credit must go to Graham (a Remain voter, though neither side emerged well) for achieving the impossible — making something Brexit-related enjoyable. Cumberbatch mastered Cummings’ disdain and soft northeast accent, though it occasionally drifted into soft Scouse. John Heffernan as Matthew Elliott was a highlight as was Richard Goulding’s mimicry of Boris Johnson. Lee Boardman provided splendid comic relief as a boorish Arron Banks swigging lager from a can. And did you notice that in neither Leave’s nor Remain’s campaign was there a single mention of the EU divorce bill or the Irish border? This was an accurate (and painful to many) reminder that while Leave bent the rules, Remain was complacent, lacklustre and fatally out of touch with a forgotten demographic.
I've always felt that the official Remain campaign was smug and London-centred.
That was another interesting snippet in the piece - when Cummings asked why there wasn't any media reaction to their Facebook advertising - "they aren't seeing it - Metropolitan journalists aren't our target' - so another part of the grief at the result was that traditional gatekeepers to information and news - the "mainstream media" had been cut entirely out of the loop.....
As I just posted, the UK officially says the following:
"The work with the Holy See is unique, because we are not only dealing with a sovereign country (Vatican City State) but also with a global faith (the Roman Catholic Church, with 1.3bn adherents including in the UK).""
The US also makes it clear they work on global issues with the Holy See.
And the Queen's ambassadors will represent our national views on a wide range of issues, including ones to do with the Commonwealth. Is that wrong as well? Incidentally arguably the answer is yes. But it still happens.
Unless you can show that they actually intervene on behalf of Catholics who are non-citizens I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
I'm just not sure why everyone's getting so het up about this.
You mean someone would make a lot out of a v little on PB.. Shock horror!
Despite the odd cartoon caricature, all credit must go to Graham (a Remain voter, though neither side emerged well) for achieving the impossible — making something Brexit-related enjoyable. Cumberbatch mastered Cummings’ disdain and soft northeast accent, though it occasionally drifted into soft Scouse. John Heffernan as Matthew Elliott was a highlight as was Richard Goulding’s mimicry of Boris Johnson. Lee Boardman provided splendid comic relief as a boorish Arron Banks swigging lager from a can. And did you notice that in neither Leave’s nor Remain’s campaign was there a single mention of the EU divorce bill or the Irish border? This was an accurate (and painful to many) reminder that while Leave bent the rules, Remain was complacent, lacklustre and fatally out of touch with a forgotten demographic.
However what remained (sorry) with me was that Cummings used modern techniques and consequent information available to him a great deal better than Remain
And when Obama did it 4 years before it was hailed as 'the new politics' and a 'smart way of reaching previous non-voters.'
When Cummings did it you get reviews like the one in the Guardian.....
Quite. I thought the London-centric, almost Tory-centric (with a bit of a nod to Nick Clegg) top-down depiction of Stronger In was handled well.
Despite the odd cartoon caricature, all credit must go to Graham (a Remain voter, though neither side emerged well) for achieving the impossible — making something Brexit-related enjoyable. Cumberbatch mastered Cummings’ disdain and soft northeast accent, though it occasionally drifted into soft Scouse. John Heffernan as Matthew Elliott was a highlight as was Richard Goulding’s mimicry of Boris Johnson. Lee Boardman provided splendid comic relief as a boorish Arron Banks swigging lager from a can. And did you notice that in neither Leave’s nor Remain’s campaign was there a single mention of the EU divorce bill or the Irish border? This was an accurate (and painful to many) reminder that while Leave bent the rules, Remain was complacent, lacklustre and fatally out of touch with a forgotten demographic.
I've always felt that the official Remain campaign was smug and London-centred.
That was another interesting snippet in the piece - when Cummings asked why there wasn't any media reaction to their Facebook advertising - "they aren't seeing it - Metropolitan journalists aren't our target' - so another part of the grief at the result was that traditional gatekeepers to information and news - the "mainstream media" had been cut entirely out of the loop.....
And it's wondered why print newspapers are losing readers.......
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them
In the US the Holy See has an Apostolic Nuncio, while the US has an Ambassador to the Holy See, Callista Gingrich.
Clearly the EU and US should have bilateral relations - the reaction is to the pearl clutching to the EU's demotion to "international Organisation" from 'Member State".
Personally I'm very unflustered about this demotion, as I am about the EU having such representation in the first place. Though I can understand why Europhobes get so het up about the latter.
I do wonder how long Trump's 'policies' will last; I can see many being reversed when he's out of power; perhaps just because he was the one who implemented them ...
The Americans can do what they want, but to downgrade the EU ambassador's status and not inform him is a pretty big lapse of protocol and not particularly friendly.
Trump may not be keen on all the insults and disrespect to the position of POTUS that flow from Europe. I'm expect those actions may generate a reaction.
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them
In the US the Holy See has an Apostolic Nuncio, while the US has an Ambassador to the Holy See, Callista Gingrich.
Clearly the EU and US should have bilateral relations - the reaction is to the pearl clutching to the EU's demotion to "international Organisation" from 'Member State".
Personally I'm very unflustered about this demotion, as I am about the EU having such representation in the first place. Though I can understand why Europhobes get so het up about the latter.
I do wonder how long Trump's 'policies' will last; I can see many being reversed when he's out of power; perhaps just because he was the one who implemented them ...
The Americans can do what they want, but to downgrade the EU ambassador's status and not inform him is a pretty big lapse of protocol and not particularly friendly.
Agree with that. But that's the mark of the man at the top.
The US is being intensely damaged by the Trump presidency. And many Americans do not care. It will take an exceptionally good president to undo the damage he is causing, yet alone the rifts in American society and politics that enabled his rise.
The downgrade is significant because it indicates the US administration is uninterested in friendly relations with the EU. Protocol is a way of getting your message across.
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them
In the US the Holy See has an Apostolic Nuncio, while the US has an Ambassador to the Holy See, Callista Gingrich.
Clearly the EU and US should have bilateral relations - the reaction is to the pearl clutching to the EU's demotion to "international Organisation" from 'Member State".
Personally I'm very unflustered about this demotion, as I am about the EU having such representation in the first place. Though I can understand why Europhobes get so het up about the latter.
I do wonder how long Trump's 'policies' will last; I can see many being reversed when he's out of power; perhaps just because he was the one who implemented them ...
The Americans can do what they want, but to downgrade the EU ambassador's status and not inform him is a pretty big lapse of protocol and not particularly friendly.
Agree with that. But that's the mark of the man at the top.
The US is being intensely damaged by the Trump presidency. And many Americans do not care. It will take an exceptionally good president to undo the damage he is causing, yet alone the rifts in American society and politics that enabled his rise.
The downgrade is significant because it indicates the US administration is uninterested in friendly relations with the EU. Protocol is a way of getting your message across.
Edit The US appears to have an explicit, new, if not yet open policy of dismantling the international rule based system, because it reckons it can strongarm a better outcome for itself. It is also trying to dismantle the WTO rule system
As I just posted, the UK officially says the following:
"The work with the Holy See is unique, because we are not only dealing with a sovereign country (Vatican City State) but also with a global faith (the Roman Catholic Church, with 1.3bn adherents including in the UK).""
The US also makes it clear they work on global issues with the Holy See.
And the Queen's ambassadors will represent our national views on a wide range of issues, including ones to do with the Commonwealth. Is that wrong as well? Incidentally arguably the answer is yes. But it still happens.
Unless you can show that they actually intervene on behalf of Catholics who are non-citizens I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
I'm just not sure why everyone's getting so het up about this.
Are you really claiming that they do not deign to represent Catholics worldwide? Really? Just look at that segment from the UK government's website, or the equivalent US website.
Your comparison with the Commonwealth is flawed. The UK government represents 60-70 million people, and the Commonwealth will always be a side issue. In the case of the Holy See, its tiny population means that its work will always be about the wider Catholic constituency.
BTW, I'm not 'het up' about it; I'm just pointing out that people ignore and excuse inconsistencies they like, and criticise those they do not.
Something, I should add, that I'm as guilty of as anyone else.
I did not see Brexit the movie as I have enough Brexit in my life. Dominic Cummings lives round my way and is an unpleasant looking character. He is usually to be found drinking coffee in the local cafe, talking conspiratorially on his phone.
Ironic that he is played by “heart-throb” Benedict Cumberflaps (who also lives round my way).
Comments
.....There is however little doubt that its commercial success led to its aesthetic success.
I spoke once to someone who worked on the film (and won an Oscar for it) - in Mexico they christened the huge set "The Funnels of Doom'' so convinced were they that they were making a commercial flop.
Two great quotes - the success among teenage girls was down to Leo being 'the perfect boyfriend who dies before he can disappoint you' - and Cameron (who was arguably more anti-British than the Nazis in their wartime epic) was "faithful to the details but promiscuous with the facts"
I think you'll find it was 2h 86m long.......
However - global box office:
Titanic: $2.2bn
The Full Monty: $0.3bn
Good Will Hunting: 0.2bn
As Good as it Gets: $0.3bn
L.A. Confidential: $0.1bn
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2019/01/07/brexit-uncivil-war-review-dominic-cummings-becomes-hero-hour/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6567007/Benedict-Cumberbatchs-brilliant-turn-anarchic-geek-Brexit-Uncivil-War.html
Standard says viewers did not:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-the-uncivil-war-viewers-switch-off-as-depressing-drama-is-likened-to-a-horror-film-a4032886.html
And the Guardian really didn’t:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/07/brexit-the-uncivil-war-review-superficial-irresponsible-tv-cumberbatch
"I can confirm that this has not been well received in Brussels" says an official.
Some 15% of the UK's energy is consumed via electricity, so wind turbines are producing around 6.6% of our energy.
It is not as though the US and EU have any mutual interests they need to discuss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_Holy_See
whereas these are still the subject of some dispute as far as the EU is concerned, whose "complex and unprecedented form of international institutional cooperation" allow room for scholars to argue the point. See:
https://www.utwente.nl/en/bms/pa/research/wessel/wessel1.pdf
Of course such considerations would be lost on the current occupant of the White House.
https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america_en/32345/History of the EU Delegation in Washington, D.C.
As for the Holy See, your link shows it has those rights not through the usual reasons, e.g. a population and territory (the See is not the Vatican), but mostly because it always has had those rights.
IMV the Holy See is a religious entity and has no territory. It should not have ambassadors.
It seems odd for someone to criticise the EU for having ambassadors, yet is happy for the Holy See to have them (BTW I am not saying you are doing this).
(Such arguments against the Holy See having ambassadors could be mostly solved by renaming them the ambassadors for the Vatican City. And then being treated with the same importance as the ambassadors for Andorra or Saint Vincent).
Technically the UK has no embassies to or from it. The Court of St James, on the other hand, has a great many.
And as the Vatican is a legally recognised state, albeit one which has many government functions discharged on its behalf by Italy, and the Holy See is the government of it, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Edit - Why are members of other 'self-identifying' religious groups not get given similar representation? Say protestants, or the other orthodox churches that have distinct leaders / leadership groups? Because the Vatican is a country, and Canterbury Cathedral Close isn't.
And for those who were doubting the UK still has soft power, you have ponder on who might have been holding the President's hand for this EU downgrade....
Clearly the EU and US should have bilateral relations - the reaction is to the pearl clutching to the EU's demotion to "international Organisation" from 'Member State".
A very Trump thing to do, especially given that the decision he’s reversing was made in the last weeks of his predecessor’s term of office. As you say, I wonder which friendly country might have given him a nudge in that direction?
Despite the odd cartoon caricature, all credit must go to Graham (a Remain voter, though neither side emerged well) for achieving the impossible — making something Brexit-related enjoyable. Cumberbatch mastered Cummings’ disdain and soft northeast accent, though it occasionally drifted into soft Scouse. John Heffernan as Matthew Elliott was a highlight as was Richard Goulding’s mimicry of Boris Johnson. Lee Boardman provided splendid comic relief as a boorish Arron Banks swigging lager from a can. And did you notice that in neither Leave’s nor Remain’s campaign was there a single mention of the EU divorce bill or the Irish border? This was an accurate (and painful to many) reminder that while Leave bent the rules, Remain was complacent, lacklustre and fatally out of touch with a forgotten demographic.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/times2/tv-review-brexit-the-uncivil-war-t7p8f0bms
And your point ignores that the Holy See is much more than the government of the Vatican; especially in terms of the people it 'represents' around the world. If a representative of the Holy See goes into a meeting and represents the interests of the Vatican City and its tiny population, fair enough. And it should be treated with the importance of a tiny state. It he deigns to represent worldwide Catholics, that's wrong.
And of course it's the latter.
The Vatican is an independent state:
http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en.html
The Holy See, aka the Pope, as the government of the Vatican, has the right to send and receive ambassadors.
The Church of England is not an independent state. It does not have the right to send and receive ambassadors.
However, the Head of State of the UK - who by coinicidence is head of the second largest church in the UK - can send and receive ambassadors on behalf of said UK. And does.
The EU is not a country, and does not have a government. Therefore, there is no way it can legally send and receive full embassies.
It is slightly irritating that after all these assurances it is not a country and wasn't going to become one that they are getting their knickers in a twist because Trump has taken them at their word.
I do wonder how long Trump's 'policies' will last; I can see many being reversed when he's out of power; perhaps just because he was the one who implemented them ...
There are 594 citizens of the Vatican. The majority of them live outside the Vatican. Can you tell me how often the embassies have intervened for others, not citizens of the Vatican?
And since (again) the EU often shoves its oar in outside its legal areas of competence to give its views on a very wide range of subjects, I'm not sure whether this isn't a further distinction without a difference.
Secondary thoughts; we read a lot on here about party memberships; if you don't need as many (any?) door-knockers, do you need as many door-knockers? In a 'green' age, are voters actually going to be angered by cutting down Amazonian forests and pushing them through letter boxes? Are you going to use 'members' primarily as sources of finance? Or do you need that sort of finance, as opposed to a few big donors?
e.g.:
"The work with the Holy See is unique, because we are not only dealing with a sovereign country (Vatican City State) but also with a global faith (the Roman Catholic Church, with 1.3bn adherents including in the UK)."
https://www.gov.uk/world/organisations/british-embassy-holy-see
That's hard to defend when other faiths don't get similar treatment. And why just faiths?
If you make an exception for the Holy See, then you can make one for the EU, as extra representation for the second largest economy in the world? If you make exceptions in one case, you can make them in others.
"The work with the Holy See is unique, because we are not only dealing with a sovereign country (Vatican City State) but also with a global faith (the Roman Catholic Church, with 1.3bn adherents including in the UK).""
The US also makes it clear they work on global issues with the Holy See.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/07/why-alarmingly-bad-tv-swept-the-golden-globes
When Cummings did it you get reviews like the one in the Guardian.....
Unless you can show that they actually intervene on behalf of Catholics who are non-citizens I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
I'm just not sure why everyone's getting so het up about this.
The US is being intensely damaged by the Trump presidency. And many Americans do not care. It will take an exceptionally good president to undo the damage he is causing, yet alone the rifts in American society and politics that enabled his rise.
I'm expect those actions may generate a reaction.
Your comparison with the Commonwealth is flawed. The UK government represents 60-70 million people, and the Commonwealth will always be a side issue. In the case of the Holy See, its tiny population means that its work will always be about the wider Catholic constituency.
BTW, I'm not 'het up' about it; I'm just pointing out that people ignore and excuse inconsistencies they like, and criticise those they do not.
Something, I should add, that I'm as guilty of as anyone else.
Ironic that he is played by “heart-throb” Benedict Cumberflaps (who also lives round my way).