Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Govey maintaining and extending his lead in the next CON leade

1235

Comments

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,848
    Mr. NorthWales, suspending Parliament because it disagrees with you is a bit Charles II.

    However, MPs trying to ignore the will of the electorate is equally stupid. But because that's the political-media class' consensus, it'll get far less opprobrium.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,108
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,501
    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
  • Nigelb said:


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with.....
    Well we aren't making a spectacular success of dealing with it at the national level right now...
    We have made a mess of it for the past 45 years. What we are doing now is trying to put that right.
    I've seen that argument before; that all our woes in the last 40 odd years are the fault of the EU.
    Can't follow it myself. I thought we'd had Government's who'd made decisions.
    I certainly don't say all of our problems. But membership of the EU certainly hasn't helped and has in many ways hindered our progress as a nation.
    Really, really don't see it.
    What has the EU ever done for us?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,816
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Brexiteers sound a lot like supporters of the Enabling Act of 1933.
    HM rule by decree? We could do worse... :p
    If @Thescreamingeagles analogy is correct then the Tories could be on track to win all 650 seats in the House of Commons shortly :o !
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    AndyJS said:
    All this polling basically shows the same. 50% want to remain no matter what is offered, 50% think leave means leave at all costs.
    We had a 50/50 result with the Welsh Assembly referendum in 1997 and it didn't seem to cause any problems.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited January 2019

    And no the benefits if living in the EU in no way outweigh the costs.

    In your opinion.
    There are a lot of unquantifiable benefits. Freedom of movement is only one, and what it leads to, the liberation of ideas, the feeling that one can go and do things, as opposed to being constrained by national borders.
    Yes, we can go to Australia or Canada, but it's a major exercise, not a matter of a short flight or a ferry.
    You can go to 160+ countries visa free with a UK passport for up to 3 months even six months. Most of the 30 or so which require UK citizens to get visas aren't places which would be first choice for a vacation anyway e.g. Yemen and Iran. Apart from when you enter the US rarely are you questioned - they are happy to accept your tourist cash and assume you will leave by the deadline.

    For the vast majority of Brits that is sufficient. Despite us being in the EU (and its forebears) for nearly 50 years there are more British citizens resident in Australia - where we lost FOM in the 70s - than there are in the whole of the EU outside the British isles.

    95% plus of UK citizens probably have never and will never take advantage of FOM in the real sense i.e. moving to an EU member state for more than 3 months for anything but a holiday. Only 1.5 million or so do now. The vast majority just aren't interested - and see its negatives in terms of not being able to control immigration levels here and thus plan for housing and public services.

    And if - beyond a 6 euro ESTA style fee every 3 years (less than the price of a seat on a Ryanair flight) - the EU/EEA were ever to decide to make tourism for Brits difficult well there are 130 other nations that don't. So people can vote with their wallets and holiday in places where they are welcome.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,108
    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Brexiteers sound a lot like supporters of the Enabling Act of 1933.
    HM rule by decree? We could do worse... :p
    If @Thescreamingeagles analogy is correct then the Tories could be on track to win all 650 seats in the House of Commons shortly :o !
    :o smelling salts on standby.
  • Nigelb said:


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with.....
    Well we aren't making a spectacular success of dealing with it at the national level right now...
    We have made a mess of it for the past 45 years. What we are doing now is trying to put that right.
    I've seen that argument before; that all our woes in the last 40 odd years are the fault of the EU.
    Can't follow it myself. I thought we'd had Government's who'd made decisions.
    I certainly don't say all of our problems. But membership of the EU certainly hasn't helped and has in many ways hindered our progress as a nation.
    You're ambivalent about what that nation is, so your fanaticism is hard to take seriously even on its own terms.
    No, I am clear about what that nation currently is. It is you who dislikes the basic concept of the nation as you have made clear on here a number of times before.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with. If there is a need for multinational action then it can be taken through multinational bodies such as the UN or WTO or through bilateral agreements. But no power is surrendered from the national level.

    Now you engage in your childish little logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum but it works of course the other way. The opposite argument to the non-existent 'Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire' is one world government that controls every aspect of your life. Neither are likely or desirable. So your argument, as it usually does, fails.
    Pure Libertarianism or possibly anarchy. Neither of which have ever worked.

    Cooperation and togetherness, OTOH, is how humanity has made progress.
    LOL. What I have described is neither pure Libertarianism nor anarchy.
    Tyndallism?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,108

    Nigelb said:


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with.....
    Well we aren't making a spectacular success of dealing with it at the national level right now...
    We have made a mess of it for the past 45 years. What we are doing now is trying to put that right.
    I've seen that argument before; that all our woes in the last 40 odd years are the fault of the EU.
    Can't follow it myself. I thought we'd had Government's who'd made decisions.
    I certainly don't say all of our problems. But membership of the EU certainly hasn't helped and has in many ways hindered our progress as a nation.
    Really, really don't see it.
    What has the EU ever done for us?
    The emulsified high fat offal tube?

    It was great as a trading bloc, but now it has loftier ambitions.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 5,433
    Scott_P said:
    That seems a lot less definite than her denials that she would do other things she went on to do. :-(
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,334

    Nigelb said:


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with.....
    Well we aren't making a spectacular success of dealing with it at the national level right now...
    We have made a mess of it for the past 45 years. What we are doing now is trying to put that right.
    You must have a very glass half empty view of recent history. The last 45 years have been an unparalleled success by virtually every measure if you are fortunate to have been born a westerner. The only downsides are probably environmental, though even that has its optimistic aspects in the sense people are beginning to take notice. You allow your hatred of the EU to cloud what has been an amazing period of enlightenment, now sadly to be replaced by a period of populism and general gullibility .
    Hear hear. The world might be a long way from perfect but for the vast majority of people life is far better now than it was 45 years ago.
  • Scott_P said:
    Brexiteers sound a lot like supporters of the Enabling Act of 1933.
    That was Blair's Civil Contingencies Act of 2004. It already exists and is on the statute book. I hope you were protesting against that as loudly as you now protest against Brexit.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 31,950

    Nigelb said:


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with.....
    Well we aren't making a spectacular success of dealing with it at the national level right now...
    We have made a mess of it for the past 45 years. What we are doing now is trying to put that right.
    I've seen that argument before; that all our woes in the last 40 odd years are the fault of the EU.
    Can't follow it myself. I thought we'd had Government's who'd made decisions.
    I certainly don't say all of our problems. But membership of the EU certainly hasn't helped and has in many ways hindered our progress as a nation.
    You're ambivalent about what that nation is, so your fanaticism is hard to take seriously even on its own terms.
    No, I am clear about what that nation currently is. It is you who dislikes the basic concept of the nation as you have made clear on here a number of times before.
    If the definition of the nation is transient and amounts to nothing more than the boundaries of the current state, then your rigid system has no meaning. Either England and Scotland are nations that have been unnaturally bound together in a hated supranational entity, or they are not.
  • Scott_P said:
    Brexiteers sound a lot like supporters of the Enabling Act of 1933.
    That was Blair's Civil Contingencies Act of 2004. It already exists and is on the statute book. I hope you were protesting against that as loudly as you now protest against Brexit.
    I did and have.

    I've often said if my dream to be the country's first directly elected Dictator is to be realised, I'd be using the 2004 CCA to achieve my dream.
  • Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Brexiteers sound a lot like supporters of the Enabling Act of 1933.
    HM rule by decree? We could do worse... :p
    If @Thescreamingeagles analogy is correct then the Tories could be on track to win all 650 seats in the House of Commons shortly :o !
    I'm a seller at 650.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited January 2019
    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    So that's 52% leave 37% remain?!

    Mrs May's deal is also the least popular but the most acceptable. But it seems half the country won't be happy with any option.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,322
    edited January 2019
    The beard that is feared does it again for England. Shame he can’t bloody bat.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,340
    edited January 2019

    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with. If there is a need for multinational action then it can be taken through multinational bodies such as the UN or WTO or through bilateral agreements. But no power is surrendered from the national level.

    Now you engage in your childish little logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum but it works of course the other way. The opposite argument to the non-existent 'Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire' is one world government that controls every aspect of your life. Neither are likely or desirable. So your argument, as it usually does, fails.

    That the nation state must not give up powers to a larger entity is an arbitrary cut-off. Leaving aside practicalities, there is nothing inherently flawed with the notion of government at a higher level than that.

    It is all about the principle and logistics of decision making. The interplay of efficiency and democratic accountability.

    What colour jumper to buy? - the individual.
    Where to move house? - the family.
    How often the bins should be emptied? - local govt.
    What the basic rate of income tax should be? - national govt.

    Being examples.

    But one can think of many matters which it can easily be argued ought to be decided at a supra-national level:

    The minimum penalty for murder.
    The age of sexual consent.
    The definition for tax purposes of income vs capital.
    The voting age.
    The boundaries of freedom of speech.
    The limits on carbon emissions.
    Etc.

    There is nothing magical about the nation state.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,266

    The beard that is feared does it again for England. Shame he can’t bloody bat.

    A new Hope comes to the crease...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,039

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Brexiteers sound a lot like supporters of the Enabling Act of 1933.
    HM rule by decree? We could do worse... :p
    If @Thescreamingeagles analogy is correct then the Tories could be on track to win all 650 seats in the House of Commons shortly :o !
    I'm a seller at 650.
    It's a shame there's no Sporting Index market on seat spreads for the next election (I appreciate there can't be because the number of seats might yet be altered). Pricing it right now would be a subject of a lot of contention.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,790
    brendan16 said:

    And no the benefits if living in the EU in no way outweigh the costs.

    In your opinion.
    There are a lot of unquantifiable benefits. Freedom of movement is only one, and what it leads to, the liberation of ideas, the feeling that one can go and do things, as opposed to being constrained by national borders.
    Yes, we can go to Australia or Canada, but it's a major exercise, not a matter of a short flight or a ferry.
    You can go to 160+ countries visa free with a UK passport for up to 3 months even six months. Most of the 30 or so which require UK citizens to get visas aren't places which would be first choice for a vacation anyway e.g. Yemen and Iran. Apart from when you enter the US rarely are you questioned - they are happy to accept your tourist cash and assume you will leave by the deadline.

    For the vast majority of Brits that is sufficient. Despite us being in the EU (and its forebears) for nearly 50 years there are more British citizens resident in Australia - where we lost FOM in the 70s - than there are in the whole of the EU outside the British isles.

    95% plus of UK citizens probably have never and will never take advantage of FOM in the real sense i.e. moving to an EU member state for more than 3 months for anything but a holiday. Only 1.5 million or so do now. The vast majority just aren't interested - and see its negatives in terms of not being able to control immigration levels here and thus plan for housing and public services.

    And if - beyond a 6 euro ESTA style fee every 3 years (less than the price of a seat on a Ryanair flight) - the EU/EEA were ever to decide to make tourism for Brits difficult well there are 130 other nations that don't. So people can vote with their wallets and holiday in places where they are welcome.
    According to what I could find on Wikipedia, there are slightly more Brits in the EU than in Australia.
    Travelling around SE Asia I've often found a visa necessary, although it's usually only a question of a couple of days to get one.
    The point is too, that the EU figures appear to be slowly and steadily increasing, both for work and for retirement.

    I'll agree that tourism is often the reason for travel, but it's quite noticeable how many Brits one sees working in such places as the Canaries.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,103
    edited January 2019
    The Finance Bill has its House of Lords proceedings on 4 February.

    After that and Royal Assent given, Parliament can be prorogated as income tax can be collected from 5 April.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,452
    Scott_P said:
    That looks more like May is saying "please don't ask me to speculate" rather than ruling out the option?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,175

    Scott_P said:
    Brexiteers sound a lot like supporters of the Enabling Act of 1933.
    ERG meets Zanu PF. They will be occupying Remain owned farms next
    They will close down the internet shortly. Stock up on quill pens, parchment and sealingg wax while stocks last.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 5,433
    Scott_P said:
    What does it imply if he's saying that not all the legislation required for No Deal will be ready for Brexit date?

    That even No Dealers would have to ask for an extension?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,501
    kinabalu said:

    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with. If there is a need for multinational action then it can be taken through multinational bodies such as the UN or WTO or through bilateral agreements. But no power is surrendered from the national level.

    Now you engage in your childish little logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum but it works of course the other way. The opposite argument to the non-existent 'Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire' is one world government that controls every aspect of your life. Neither are likely or desirable. So your argument, as it usually does, fails.

    That the nation state must not give up powers to a larger entity is essentially an arbitrary cut-off.

    Leaving aside practicalities, there is nothing inherently flawed with the notion of government at a higher level than the nation state.

    It is all about the principle and logistics of decision making. The interplay of efficiency and democratic accountability.

    What colour jumper to buy? - the individual.
    Where to move house? - the family.
    How often the bins should be emptied? - local govt.
    What the basic rate of income tax should be? - national govt.

    Being examples.

    But one can think of many matters which it can easily be argued ought to be decided at a supra-national level:

    The minimum penalty for murder.
    The age of sexual consent.
    The definition for tax purposes of income vs capital.
    The voting age.
    The boundaries of freedom of speech.
    The limits on carbon emissions.
    Etc.

    There is nothing magical about the nation state.
    I'd have thought the limits on carbon emissions are the only one that could reasonably decided above national level.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,266
    Scott_P said:
    But they still owe us a port after giving away Calais to the French at the end of Mary's reign.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,108
    edited January 2019
    Scott_P said:
    Spain have been bitching about Gibraltar even when we were at the table. Their fault for handing it over in perpetuity....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Chris said:

    What does it imply if he's saying that not all the legislation required for No Deal will be ready for Brexit date?

    That even No Dealers would have to ask for an extension?

    That looks to be the gist of it
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 31,950
    RobD said:

    brendan16 said:

    And no the benefits if living in the EU in no way outweigh the costs.

    In your opinion.
    There are a lot of unquantifiable benefits. Freedom of movement is only one, and what it leads to, the liberation of ideas, the feeling that one can go and do things, as opposed to being constrained by national borders.
    Yes, we can go to Australia or Canada, but it's a major exercise, not a matter of a short flight or a ferry.
    You can go to 160+ countries visa free with a UK passport for up to 3 months even six months. Most of the 30 or so which require UK citizens to get visas aren't places which would be first choice for a vacation anyway e.g. Yemen and Iran. Apart from when you enter the US rarely are you questioned - they are happy to accept your tourist cash and assume you will leave by the deadline.

    For the vast majority of Brits that is sufficient. Despite us being in the EU (and its forebears) for nearly 50 years there are more British citizens resident in Australia - where we lost FOM in the 70s - than there are in the whole of the EU outside the British isles.

    95% plus of UK citizens probably have never and will never take advantage of FOM in the real sense i.e. moving to an EU member state for more than 3 months for anything but a holiday. Only 1.5 million or so do now. The vast majority just aren't interested - and see its negatives in terms of not being able to control immigration levels here and thus plan for housing and public services.

    And if - beyond a 6 euro ESTA style fee every 3 years (less than the price of a seat on a Ryanair flight) - the EU/EEA were ever to decide to make tourism for Brits difficult well there are 130 other nations that don't. So people can vote with their wallets and holiday in places where they are welcome.
    According to what I could find on Wikipedia, there are slightly more Brits in the EU than in Australia.
    Travelling around SE Asia I've often found a visa necessary, although it's usually only a question of a couple of days to get one.
    The point is too, that the EU figures appear to be slowly and steadily increasing, both for work and for retirement.

    I'll agree that tourism is often the reason for travel, but it's quite noticeable how many Brits one sees working in such places as the Canaries.
    Su
    Scott_P said:
    Spain have been bitching about Gibraltar even when we were at the table. Their fault for handing it over in perpetuity....
    They also gave up Menorca in perpetuity in the same treaty, but got it back.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,283
    Yet the Tories will not stop until our country is ruined.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,108
    edited January 2019


    They also gave up Menorca in perpetuity in the same treaty, but got it back.

    Do they ever keep their word? :p
  • ChrisChris Posts: 5,433
    Scott_P said:

    Chris said:

    What does it imply if he's saying that not all the legislation required for No Deal will be ready for Brexit date?

    That even No Dealers would have to ask for an extension?

    That looks to be the gist of it
    Hmm. I suspect JRM is about to be denounced as a scaremonger by someone even loonier.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2019
    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    Interesting figures. You probably can't assume that 29+23=52 in this case.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    'According to what I could find on Wikipedia, there are slightly more Brits in the EU than in Australia.
    Travelling around SE Asia I've often found a visa necessary, although it's usually only a question of a couple of days to get one.
    The point is too, that the EU figures appear to be slowly and steadily increasing, both for work and for retirement.

    I'll agree that tourism is often the reason for travel, but it's quite noticeable how many Brits one sees working in such places as the Canaries'

    Does that figure include Brits in the Irish republic (150,000 plus) - who I wouldn't count due to the CTA. Also there are many residents of Australia who don't realise they are British citizens - about 10% of their parliament at the last count!!

    I accept your point - and I don't deny there are some - but I would still suggest 90% plus of Brits will never take advantage of FOM (in terms of moving to work for more than 3 months) so its loss is not that big a deal for them. Most cant afford to move, don't speak other languages and bluntly most would rather stay at home near family and friends. You don't miss what you never did.
  • IanB2 said:

    Yet the Tories will not stop until our country is ruined.
    Some of them, going through the lobby with Labour, the SNP, and the LibDems.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,340
    Sean_F said:

    I'd have thought the limits on carbon emissions are the only one that could reasonably decided above national level.

    Why?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,283


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with. If there is a need for multinational action then it can be taken through multinational bodies such as the UN or WTO or through bilateral agreements. But no power is surrendered from the national level.

    Now you engage in your childish little logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum but it works of course the other way. The opposite argument to the non-existent 'Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire' is one world government that controls every aspect of your life. Neither are likely or desirable. So your argument, as it usually does, fails.
    At least if we ever need to rank PB'ers in terms of idiocy on a scale from one to a hundred, we will have you to peg in the ground to represent the upper limit.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,043

    Mr. NorthWales, suspending Parliament because it disagrees with you is a bit Charles II.

    However, MPs trying to ignore the will of the electorate is equally stupid. But because that's the political-media class' consensus, it'll get far less opprobrium.

    Charles II?
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    IanB2 said:

    Yet the Tories will not stop until our country is ruined.
    Brexit - the policy that keeps on giving. The Dutch must love us....
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684

    Nigelb said:


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with.....
    Well we aren't making a spectacular success of dealing with it at the national level right now...
    We have made a mess of it for the past 45 years. What we are doing now is trying to put that right.
    I've seen that argument before; that all our woes in the last 40 odd years are the fault of the EU.
    Can't follow it myself. I thought we'd had Government's who'd made decisions.
    I certainly don't say all of our problems. But membership of the EU certainly hasn't helped and has in many ways hindered our progress as a nation.
    Really, really don't see it.
    What has the EU ever done for us?
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-european-regional-development-fund-operational-programme-2014-to-2020
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,266

    Mr. NorthWales, suspending Parliament because it disagrees with you is a bit Charles II.

    However, MPs trying to ignore the will of the electorate is equally stupid. But because that's the political-media class' consensus, it'll get far less opprobrium.

    Charles II?
    Cromwell.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,501
    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    I'd have thought the limits on carbon emissions are the only one that could reasonably decided above national level.

    Why?
    The rest can quite easily be handled at national level.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited January 2019

    Mr. NorthWales, suspending Parliament because it disagrees with you is a bit Charles II.

    However, MPs trying to ignore the will of the electorate is equally stupid. But because that's the political-media class' consensus, it'll get far less opprobrium.

    Charles II?
    Charles II got away with it - he dissolved parliament in 1681 (it wasn't the first time) and ruled without it until 1685 when he died of an apoplectic fit.

    His dad wasn't so lucky.

    The exclusion bill which caused Charles II's angst wanted to remove his brother from the line of succession. The Abhorrers—those who thought the Exclusion Bill was abhorrent—were named Tories (after a term for dispossessed Irish Catholic bandits), while the Petitioners—those who supported a petitioning campaign in favour of the Exclusion Bill—were called Whigs (after a term for rebellious Scottish Presbyterians). And that had quite a long term impact - as the 'dispossessed Irish catholic bandits' are in power today!
  • Streeter said:

    Nigelb said:


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with.....
    Well we aren't making a spectacular success of dealing with it at the national level right now...
    We have made a mess of it for the past 45 years. What we are doing now is trying to put that right.
    I've seen that argument before; that all our woes in the last 40 odd years are the fault of the EU.
    Can't follow it myself. I thought we'd had Government's who'd made decisions.
    I certainly don't say all of our problems. But membership of the EU certainly hasn't helped and has in many ways hindered our progress as a nation.
    Really, really don't see it.
    What has the EU ever done for us?
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-european-regional-development-fund-operational-programme-2014-to-2020
    Giving us a fraction of our own money back to us at great bureaucratic expense?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,501
    IanB2 said:

    Yet the Tories will not stop until our country is ruined.
    Yet UK employment keeps rising.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    AndyJS said:

    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    Interesting figures. You probably can't assume that 29+23=52 in this case.
    Genuine question - is "Remain" available on old terms or would we have to accept updates?
  • AndyJS said:

    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    Interesting figures. You probably can't assume that 29+23=52 in this case.
    Genuine question - is "Remain" available on old terms or would we have to accept updates?
    And accept ever closer union going forward?
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684

    Streeter said:

    Nigelb said:


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with.....
    Well we aren't making a spectacular success of dealing with it at the national level right now...
    We have made a mess of it for the past 45 years. What we are doing now is trying to put that right.
    I've seen that argument before; that all our woes in the last 40 odd years are the fault of the EU.
    Can't follow it myself. I thought we'd had Government's who'd made decisions.
    I certainly don't say all of our problems. But membership of the EU certainly hasn't helped and has in many ways hindered our progress as a nation.
    Really, really don't see it.
    What has the EU ever done for us?
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-european-regional-development-fund-operational-programme-2014-to-2020
    Giving us a fraction of our own money back to us at great bureaucratic expense?
    Obvious retort. Very poor.
  • AndyJS said:

    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    Interesting figures. You probably can't assume that 29+23=52 in this case.
    Genuine question - is "Remain" available on old terms or would we have to accept updates?
    If we revoke Article 50 we stay in the EU on the current terms (excluding Cameron's renegotiation, so we don't get the political declaration that we're not subject to ever-closer union and, most importantly, we don't get the guarantee that we won't be disadvantaged because we're not in the Eurozone).
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,545
    Does anyone have any Stuttgart/Ludwigsburg related tourist trips?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,501
    Streeter said:

    Streeter said:

    Nigelb said:


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with.....
    Well we aren't making a spectacular success of dealing with it at the national level right now...
    We have made a mess of it for the past 45 years. What we are doing now is trying to put that right.
    I've seen that argument before; that all our woes in the last 40 odd years are the fault of the EU.
    Can't follow it myself. I thought we'd had Government's who'd made decisions.
    I certainly don't say all of our problems. But membership of the EU certainly hasn't helped and has in many ways hindered our progress as a nation.
    Really, really don't see it.
    What has the EU ever done for us?
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-european-regional-development-fund-operational-programme-2014-to-2020
    Giving us a fraction of our own money back to us at great bureaucratic expense?
    Obvious retort. Very poor.
    But accurate.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,452
    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Yet the Tories will not stop until our country is ruined.
    Yet UK employment keeps rising.
    After years and years of stagnation wages seem to be rising as well?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,026
    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    That looks more like May is saying "please don't ask me to speculate" rather than ruling out the option?
    "...because you might not like the answer!"
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,043
    brendan16 said:

    Mr. NorthWales, suspending Parliament because it disagrees with you is a bit Charles II.

    However, MPs trying to ignore the will of the electorate is equally stupid. But because that's the political-media class' consensus, it'll get far less opprobrium.

    Charles II?
    Charles II got away with it - he dissolved parliament in 1681 (it wasn't the first time) and ruled without it until 1685 when he died of an apoplectic fit.

    His dad wasn't so lucky.
    thanks. I didn't know he'd tried his luck at messing about with parliament too.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    AndyJS said:

    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    Interesting figures. You probably can't assume that 29+23=52 in this case.
    Genuine question - is "Remain" available on old terms or would we have to accept updates?
    Remain is available on terms identical to our current membership by simply revoking Article 50 in line with our constitutional requirements. I think Cameron's renegotiation is dead.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    AndyJS said:

    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    Interesting figures. You probably can't assume that 29+23=52 in this case.
    Genuine question - is "Remain" available on old terms or would we have to accept updates?
    If we revoke Article 50 we stay in the EU on the current terms (excluding Cameron's renegotiation, so we don't get the political declaration that we're not subject to ever-closer union and, most importantly, we don't get the guarantee that we won't be disadvantaged because we're not in the Eurozone).
    This doesn't seem to get much air time, does it?
  • brendan16 said:


    'According to what I could find on Wikipedia, there are slightly more Brits in the EU than in Australia.
    Travelling around SE Asia I've often found a visa necessary, although it's usually only a question of a couple of days to get one.
    The point is too, that the EU figures appear to be slowly and steadily increasing, both for work and for retirement.

    I'll agree that tourism is often the reason for travel, but it's quite noticeable how many Brits one sees working in such places as the Canaries'

    Does that figure include Brits in the Irish republic (150,000 plus) - who I wouldn't count due to the CTA. Also there are many residents of Australia who don't realise they are British citizens - about 10% of their parliament at the last count!!

    I accept your point - and I don't deny there are some - but I would still suggest 90% plus of Brits will never take advantage of FOM (in terms of moving to work for more than 3 months) so its loss is not that big a deal for them. Most cant afford to move, don't speak other languages and bluntly most would rather stay at home near family and friends. You don't miss what you never did.

    What other rights can we remove on the basis that it's no big deal because only 10% of people use them? How about the right to a fair trial, or hebeas corpus, or to watch a professional football match or to be a member of a political party, or to ride a motor bike? There are so many. It would make life so much easier.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    AndyJS said:

    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    Interesting figures. You probably can't assume that 29+23=52 in this case.
    Genuine question - is "Remain" available on old terms or would we have to accept updates?
    If we revoke Article 50 we stay in the EU on the current terms (excluding Cameron's renegotiation, so we don't get the political declaration that we're not subject to ever-closer union and, most importantly, we don't get the guarantee that we won't be disadvantaged because we're not in the Eurozone).
    This doesn't seem to get much air time, does it?
    Regrettably the referendum in 2016 was lost.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited January 2019

    What has the EU ever done for us?

    Well, off the top of my head...

    - they forced us to clean up our beaches
    - they forced us to stop treating junior doctors as a form of slave
    - easier study for students and researchers at foreign universities
    - better drug regulation
    - more controls on tobacco resale
    - cheaper flights & holidays
    - cheaper phone roaming
    - upset Richard Tyndall
    - enhanced security via inter-agency cooperation
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,790
    brendan16 said:


    'According to what I could find on Wikipedia, there are slightly more Brits in the EU than in Australia.
    Travelling around SE Asia I've often found a visa necessary, although it's usually only a question of a couple of days to get one.
    The point is too, that the EU figures appear to be slowly and steadily increasing, both for work and for retirement.

    I'll agree that tourism is often the reason for travel, but it's quite noticeable how many Brits one sees working in such places as the Canaries'

    Does that figure include Brits in the Irish republic (150,000 plus) - who I wouldn't count due to the CTA. Also there are many residents of Australia who don't realise they are British citizens - about 10% of their parliament at the last count!!

    I accept your point - and I don't deny there are some - but I would still suggest 90% plus of Brits will never take advantage of FOM (in terms of moving to work for more than 3 months) so its loss is not that big a deal for them. Most cant afford to move, don't speak other languages and bluntly most would rather stay at home near family and friends. You don't miss what you never did.

    Brits have often been prepared to move for work..... think Auf Wiedersehn Pet...... which was based on fact,....... and I suggest that while it's certainly true of my generation it's less so for my children and is less so again of my grandchildren's.
    One of my children studied at a German FE unit while at Uni and one of my grandchildren certainly has friends teaching at European Uni's. Two of my nieces worked as au pairs in Spain.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,848
    Mr. 64, aye, Charles II often suspended Parliament when it annoyed him. Must be said, quite a few people around that time did likewise.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    AndyJS said:

    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    Interesting figures. You probably can't assume that 29+23=52 in this case.
    Genuine question - is "Remain" available on old terms or would we have to accept updates?
    If we revoke Article 50 we stay in the EU on the current terms (excluding Cameron's renegotiation, so we don't get the political declaration that we're not subject to ever-closer union and, most importantly, we don't get the guarantee that we won't be disadvantaged because we're not in the Eurozone).
    This doesn't seem to get much air time, does it?
    Regrettably the referendum in 2016 was lost.
    Many people don't seem to think that that referendum counted.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,283

    Streeter said:



    What has the EU ever done for us?

    Well, off the top of my head...

    - they forced us to clean up our beaches
    - they forced us to stop treating junior doctors as a form of slave
    - easier study for students and researchers at foreign universities
    - better drug regulation
    - more controls on tobacco resale
    - cheaper flights & holidays
    - cheaper phone roaming
    - upset Richard Tyndall
    - enhanced security via inter-agency cooperation
    :)
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,043

    Mr. 64, aye, Charles II often suspended Parliament when it annoyed him. Must be said, quite a few people around that time did likewise.

    Cheers. I need to study his reign a bit more. It's the neglected bit between the civil war and the glorious revolution.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    What has the EU ever done for us?

    Well, off the top of my head...

    - they forced us to clean up our beaches
    - they forced us to stop treating junior doctors as a form of slave
    - easier study for students and researchers at foreign universities
    - better drug regulation
    - more controls on tobacco resale
    - cheaper flights & holidays
    - cheaper phone roaming
    - upset Richard Tyndall
    - enhanced security via inter-agency cooperation
    Are you sure you've got your anatomical reference right?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,108
    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Yet the Tories will not stop until our country is ruined.
    Yet UK employment keeps rising.
    Ruined!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,108
    Streeter said:

    Nigelb said:


    When do you start the campaign for a free and independent Lincolnshire (apols if wrong county) - out from under the oppressive hand of those overbearing Londoners?

    I have posted many times on here about the need for massive transfers of power from London to the counties and districts so I am already well ahead of you.
    Where does it stop? When you establish the Independent Peoples Republic of Tyndallshire (population 1)? Will you negotiate FTAs with the milkman and electric board?
    It is very straight forward. So straight forward even a Remainer should be able to understand it.

    Power rests with the individual. They make all the decisions that can be made without needing a collective consideration.

    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the Parish or neighbourhood level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the District level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the County level.
    What cannot be decided at that level then moves up to the National level.

    By the time you get there, there is basically nothing that cannot be dealt with.....
    Well we aren't making a spectacular success of dealing with it at the national level right now...
    We have made a mess of it for the past 45 years. What we are doing now is trying to put that right.
    I've seen that argument before; that all our woes in the last 40 odd years are the fault of the EU.
    Can't follow it myself. I thought we'd had Government's who'd made decisions.
    I certainly don't say all of our problems. But membership of the EU certainly hasn't helped and has in many ways hindered our progress as a nation.
    Really, really don't see it.
    What has the EU ever done for us?
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-european-regional-development-fund-operational-programme-2014-to-2020
    Entirely paid for by the exchequer (as we are net contributors).
  • AndyJS said:

    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    Interesting figures. You probably can't assume that 29+23=52 in this case.
    Genuine question - is "Remain" available on old terms or would we have to accept updates?
    If we revoke A50 yes

    And as I support TM deal, if that was eliminated I would vote remain
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,790
    RobD said:

    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Yet the Tories will not stop until our country is ruined.
    Yet UK employment keeps rising.
    Ruined!
    It's odd isn't it. Apparently full-employment, a few straws about wages rising, but there's still a significant number of our fellow-countryfolk in poverty.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    What has the EU ever done for us?

    Well, off the top of my head...

    - they forced us to clean up our beaches
    - they forced us to stop treating junior doctors as a form of slave
    - easier study for students and researchers at foreign universities
    - better drug regulation
    - more controls on tobacco resale
    - cheaper flights & holidays
    - cheaper phone roaming
    - upset Richard Tyndall
    - enhanced security via inter-agency cooperation
    Are you sure you've got your anatomical reference right?
    Yes.
  • Kay Burley of Sky has been reporting all day from the Irish border and only a handful of vehicles have passed her

    It is so quiet why all the fuss
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    AndyJS said:

    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    Interesting figures. You probably can't assume that 29+23=52 in this case.
    Genuine question - is "Remain" available on old terms or would we have to accept updates?
    If we revoke A50 yes

    And as I support TM deal, if that was eliminated I would vote remain
    Your first sentence seems at variance with the opinion of others. Your second implies that you wouldn't support any other deal (which seems a bit picky) and that you are selectively discounting the validity of your previous vote.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    What has the EU ever done for us?

    Well, off the top of my head...

    - they forced us to clean up our beaches
    - they forced us to stop treating junior doctors as a form of slave
    - easier study for students and researchers at foreign universities
    - better drug regulation
    - more controls on tobacco resale
    - cheaper flights & holidays
    - cheaper phone roaming
    - upset Richard Tyndall
    - enhanced security via inter-agency cooperation
    Are you sure you've got your anatomical reference right?
    Yes.
    God bless the Irish
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,790

    Kay Burley of Sky has been reporting all day from the Irish border and only a handful of vehicles have passed her

    It is so quiet why all the fuss

    Does she know what's like normally? Ireland's not generally a 'busy' island, outside such places as Dublin, Belfast and Cork.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Kay Burley of Sky has been reporting all day from the Irish border and only a handful of vehicles have passed her

    It is so quiet why all the fuss

    Most Irish exports go via Wales to Harwich and Dover - only stopping off to drop off their pollution and particulates.

    Also there are 360+ crossing points between Ulster and the South. Good luck erecting a Trumpian "Berlin Wall" to block all those off.

  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited January 2019

    brendan16 said:


    'According to what I could find on Wikipedia, there are slightly more Brits in the EU than in Australia.
    Travelling around SE Asia I've often found a visa necessary, although it's usually only a question of a couple of days to get one.
    The point is too, that the EU figures appear to be slowly and steadily increasing, both for work and for retirement.

    I'll agree that tourism is often the reason for travel, but it's quite noticeable how many Brits one sees working in such places as the Canaries'

    Does that figure include Brits in the Irish republic (150,000 plus) - who I wouldn't count due to the CTA. Also there are many residents of Australia who don't realise they are British citizens - about 10% of their parliament at the last count!!

    I accept your point - and I don't deny there are some - but I would still suggest 90% plus of Brits will never take advantage of FOM (in terms of moving to work for more than 3 months) so its loss is not that big a deal for them. Most cant afford to move, don't speak other languages and bluntly most would rather stay at home near family and friends. You don't miss what you never did.

    What other rights can we remove on the basis that it's no big deal because only 10% of people use them? How about the right to a fair trial, or hebeas corpus, or to watch a professional football match or to be a member of a political party, or to ride a motor bike? There are so many. It would make life so much easier.


    Parliament via legislation restricts lots of rights some of the population would like unrestricted ability to do or have?

    selling class A drugs (or being able to buy them at your corner shop)
    foxhunting
    gun ownership
    molesting sheep and more

    We used of course to have freedom of movement to much of the Commonwealth until the 1970s. We joined the EEC - and understandably as we closed the door to them they closed the door to us. If you look at surveys today its Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc that British people would like to move to - not Slovakia or Estonia. But those rights were taken away - because we made a democratic choice to join the EEC against the will of those who voted no in 1975.

    And we made a democratic choice to leave the EU in 2016 - and if May's deal ever passes FOM is likely to end.

    If you want libertarianism that's fine - but there will always be laws and restrictions over what you want to do based on what parliament following elections decides.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,340
    edited January 2019
    Sean_F said:

    The rest can quite easily be handled at national level.

    But easily does not equate to most appropriately. In many cases it would be better to legislate globally - e.g. measures to prevent tax fraud and money laundering - it is simply that we have no mechanism for that.

    Ditto where it makes moral sense - e.g. the age of sexual consent.

    Often we end up doing things down at national level not because it is sensible but because it is all that we can do.

    Fair enough, one must be realistic but the inability to legislate supra-nationally is a bug not a feature.
  • glwglw Posts: 6,013
    edited January 2019

    The original viral Covington video was spread by a Twitter account called @2020fight, a new account with tens of thousands of followers that specialized in incendiary but ideologically inconsistent political content and was attributed to a “teacher” from California, despite using the photograph of a blogger from Brazil.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/controversy-students-mock-native-american-strikes-national-chord

    Russians pushing fake news from the other side now...

    Actually it backs up what Sam Harris podcast guest said the other week at Russian interference in social media, it wasn't setup as pro-Trump, it existed before him and was being used to push discontent.

    I don't know if you saw but apparently the supposed Skripal and Steele (of dossier fame) link was Russian disinfo, and it was quite widely parrotted by the usual suspects in this country at the time of the attack.
  • West Indies 89 for 1 after 30 overs.

    Moeen has the only wicket.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 26,760

    Michael Gove would be my choice of leader and if not Chancellor. His tour de force traducing Corbyn last week at the dispatch box last week was a masterclass and the labour mps knew it as you watched their horrified expressions

    And on another subject does any agree with me that Davos is an affront to decency and demonstrates all that is wrong with big business and obscene wealth

    Adam Boulton on Sky this morning said it costs a CEO $250,000 to attend

    G, Gove is almost as big a liar as May and is at least as useless to boot. An absolute whinging duffer of the first order. Almost anyone would be better than him ( non Tories as they are mainly duffers at this point).
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,816

    What has the EU ever done for us?

    Well, off the top of my head...

    - they forced us to clean up our beaches
    - they forced us to stop treating junior doctors as a form of slave
    - easier study for students and researchers at foreign universities
    - better drug regulation
    - more controls on tobacco resale
    - cheaper flights & holidays
    - cheaper phone roaming
    - upset Richard Tyndall
    - enhanced security via inter-agency cooperation
    Are you sure you've got your anatomical reference right?
    Yes.
    They gave us a EHIC.
    The UK had to pass environmental legislation which cleaned up the air and reduced our electricity bills.
    They allowed me to buy consumer goods online from Germany, Netherlands or Belgium as easily as from the UK.

    It'll all go over leavers' heads though. The statistic that puzzles me is the people who think 'no deal' means stay in the EU and don't reach a deal to leave.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,298
    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    The rest can quite easily be handled at national level.

    But easily does not equate to most appropriately. In many cases it would be better to legislate globally - e.g. measures to prevent tax fraud and money laundering - it is simply that we have no mechanism for that.

    Ditto where it makes moral sense - e.g. the age of sexual consent.

    Often we end up doing things down at national level not because it is sensible but because it all that we can do.

    Fair enough, one must be realistic but the inability to legislate supra-nationally is a bug not a feature.
    So what is your moral sense about the correct age of consent? Many countries, including the USA have legal child marriage. Others are higher than ours of 16.
  • AndyJS said:

    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:
    The favoured options are Remain 37%, No Deal 29%, May's Deal 23%.
    Interesting figures. You probably can't assume that 29+23=52 in this case.
    Genuine question - is "Remain" available on old terms or would we have to accept updates?
    If we revoke A50 yes

    And as I support TM deal, if that was eliminated I would vote remain
    Your first sentence seems at variance with the opinion of others. Your second implies that you wouldn't support any other deal (which seems a bit picky) and that you are selectively discounting the validity of your previous vote.
    If A50 is revoked in accordance with our constitutional requirements leaving is cancelled and we remain as we are on our present terms

    On your second point if TM resubmits her deal or an improved deal I will support it but if it is rejected I would support remain, as no deal is 100% unacceptable to me
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,043
    malcolmg said:

    Michael Gove would be my choice of leader and if not Chancellor. His tour de force traducing Corbyn last week at the dispatch box last week was a masterclass and the labour mps knew it as you watched their horrified expressions

    And on another subject does any agree with me that Davos is an affront to decency and demonstrates all that is wrong with big business and obscene wealth

    Adam Boulton on Sky this morning said it costs a CEO $250,000 to attend

    G, Gove is almost as big a liar as May and is at least as useless to boot. An absolute whinging duffer of the first order. Almost anyone would be better than him ( non Tories as they are mainly duffers at this point).
    hey malcolm. We're going to see the new Mary Queen of Scots film soon. How is she thought of up your way? and do you call her something different?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited January 2019

    RobD said:

    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Yet the Tories will not stop until our country is ruined.
    Yet UK employment keeps rising.
    Ruined!
    It's odd isn't it. Apparently full-employment, a few straws about wages rising, but there's still a significant number of our fellow-countryfolk in poverty.
    Most poverty is those in employment.

    Depends on the definition of poverty of course and if it is measured relative to others then there will always be people in poverty.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,790
    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:


    'According to what I could find on Wikipedia, there are slightly more Brits in the EU than in Australia.
    Travelling around SE Asia I've often found a visa necessary, although it's usually only a question of a couple of days to get one.
    The point is too, that the EU figures appear to be slowly and steadily increasing, both for work and for retirement.

    I'll agree that tourism is often the reason for travel, but it's quite noticeable how many Brits one sees working in such places as the Canaries'

    Does that figure include Brits in the Irish republic (150,000 plus) - who I wouldn't count due to the CTA. Also there are many residents of Australia who don't realise they are British citizens - about 10% of their parliament at the last count!!

    I accept your point - and I don't deny there are some - but I would still suggest 90% plus of Brits will never take advantage of FOM (in terms of moving to work for more than 3 months) so its loss is not that big a deal for them. Most cant afford to move, don't speak other languages and bluntly most would rather stay at home near family and friends. You don't miss what you never did.

    What other rights can we remove on the basis that it's no big deal because only 10% of people use them? How about the right to a fair trial, or hebeas corpus, or to watch a professional football match or to be a member of a political party, or to ride a motor bike? There are so many. It would make life so much easier.


    Parliament via legislation restricts lots of rights some of the population would like unrestricted ability to do or have?

    selling class A drugs (or being able to buy them at your corner shop)
    foxhunting
    gun ownership
    molesting sheep and more

    We used of course to have freedom of movement to much of the Commonwealth until the 1970s. We joined the EEC - and understandably as we closed the door to them they closed the door to us. If you look at surveys today its Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc that British people would like to move to - not Slovakia or Estonia. But those rights were taken away - because we made a democratic choice to join the EEC against the will of those who voted no in 1975.

    And we made a democratic choice to leave the EU in 2016 - and if May's deal ever passes FOM is likely to end.

    If you want libertarianism that's fine - but there will always be laws and restrictions over what you want to do based on what parliament following elections decides.

    As I recall the 1975 campaign the pro-EEC majority was quite substantial.

    Secondly has anyone suggested we're going to get back freedom of movement with Australia etc? Given the way the Aussies are behaving over immigration I think it's highly unlikely.
  • malcolmg said:

    Michael Gove would be my choice of leader and if not Chancellor. His tour de force traducing Corbyn last week at the dispatch box last week was a masterclass and the labour mps knew it as you watched their horrified expressions

    And on another subject does any agree with me that Davos is an affront to decency and demonstrates all that is wrong with big business and obscene wealth

    Adam Boulton on Sky this morning said it costs a CEO $250,000 to attend

    G, Gove is almost as big a liar as May and is at least as useless to boot. An absolute whinging duffer of the first order. Almost anyone would be better than him ( non Tories as they are mainly duffers at this point).
    Hi Malc - my family like Gove's work in his present role and to be honest I have no problem with him as Chancellor or even PM
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,790

    RobD said:

    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Yet the Tories will not stop until our country is ruined.
    Yet UK employment keeps rising.
    Ruined!
    It's odd isn't it. Apparently full-employment, a few straws about wages rising, but there's still a significant number of our fellow-countryfolk in poverty.
    Most poverty is those in employment.

    Depends on the definition of poverty of course and if it is measured relative to others then there will always be people in poverty.
    There will always be people who are better paid than others, but we do seem to have gone back to Victorian levels where some people are being paid less than they need to live a tolerable life.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,501
    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    The rest can quite easily be handled at national level.

    But easily does not equate to most appropriately. In many cases it would be better to legislate globally - e.g. measures to prevent tax fraud and money laundering - it is simply that we have no mechanism for that.

    Ditto where it makes moral sense - e.g. the age of sexual consent.

    Often we end up doing things down at national level not because it is sensible but because it is all that we can do.

    Fair enough, one must be realistic but the inability to legislate supra-nationally is a bug not a feature.
    I don't think there's a right or wrong answer on the age of consent. Most of would probably agree that it's wrong to have sex with pre-pubescent children, but there are entirely valid arguments to be had about whether the age should be 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18, and whether it makes a difference if the older party is in a position of authority. I can see no reason at all to set such a law at a worldwide level.

    Different countries will come to different conclusions on such a matter, along with such things as taxation, criminal justice, free speech, the age of majority etc. I can see no pressing reasons to take such decisions out of their hands.,

  • The Dutch may not be so happy when their agricultural exports to the UK go down, replaced by import substitution in the UK.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,152
    dixiedean said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    The rest can quite easily be handled at national level.

    But easily does not equate to most appropriately. In many cases it would be better to legislate globally - e.g. measures to prevent tax fraud and money laundering - it is simply that we have no mechanism for that.

    Ditto where it makes moral sense - e.g. the age of sexual consent.

    Often we end up doing things down at national level not because it is sensible but because it all that we can do.

    Fair enough, one must be realistic but the inability to legislate supra-nationally is a bug not a feature.
    So what is your moral sense about the correct age of consent? Many countries, including the USA have legal child marriage. Others are higher than ours of 16.
    This isn't even consistent across the EU - it's 15 in France and 14 in Germany for example, albeit with some caveats. I'm not aware that anyone is seriously proposing the EU focus much time on coming up with a standard?
This discussion has been closed.