Ketara wrote: Errrr....I literally stated that these things are done on an as hoc case by case basis. Maybe it was. Maybe it was a targeted weed and the docket numbers were predetermined by series in 2009. Maybe nobody took a specific decision at all as regards things. No way to know, is the point.
Except of course that is not what, and I highlight, the later No. 10 statement said. You can be pretty sure that if the targeted weed had occurred on Labour's watch then they would have released chapter and verse showing this was the case. Instead you get the comment about that the Business Case was approved. On this they are likely to be correct. But there's either deliberate or lack of awareness of what that actually means. Approval of a business case to get rid of paper based documentation does not equal agreeing to destroy certain documents (for example that could mean recording things electronically). They are two different decisions processes. So we go back the original argument. May stated that the it was under the Labour government that the decision to destroy the documents was made. No it wasn't, the decision to go 'paperless' was decided in 2009. The decision to destroy the records was in 2010 under the Tory government. May lied to / misled parliament.
The comparison to historical archives is simply not apt due to the sensitivity regarding personal information. To put it into context they knew exactly what documents were destroyed and when even now 6 years later. That shows a huge amount of organisation because not only did they know what they were they have also kept records of what they did with them.
Yeah apologies if it goes beyond three word titles. Sometimes the details really are important.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: This was mentioned in the spectator recently. The theory basically goes that people are more open to immigration when it’s precieved to be controlled. That they feel more relaxed about the immigrants they see when it’s believed that they had to pass some sort of test to be here, rather than simply coming in unhindered.
That would be the basis of modern slavery though. We are happy for you to be here whilst we control you and tell you what you can and can't do, who you can and can't be etc.. Once we've finished with you out the door you can go.
....... You're aware that historical archives are where all the government's documentation ends up if not destroyed, right? Even the personal data protected stuff? And that records are kept of docket serials destroyed, so that you can trace roughly what happened to them? But that such records usually make no note of why the documents were destroyed or at precisely what stage the decision to destroy a given batch was made? And that political officials usually have sweet fancy adams to do with any of it or any real knowledge of the actual process? Making it impossible for Labour to 'release chapter and verse'? Because it's a departmental concern?
For someone who clearly hadn't even heard the term 'targeted weeding' until I mentioned it, and evidently knows nothing about embargo periods or how government document storage functions, you are bizarrely insistent that you know the internal decision making process of the border agency well enough to insult the PM over it. I've never seen someone go to the wall like this over such a piffling concern.
What actually is proposed is an "Australian" style system in which a potential immigrant is judged on a number of criteria such as educational qualifications and wealth, and admitted to the country if they score highly enough.
This of course would not weed out immigration by relatives such as spouses and children, which are subject to human rights.
However we already have a system not wholly dissimilar to the "Australian" system, and it admits 150,000 to 200,000 non-EU citizens a year. It actually admits more non-EU citizens than the EU citizens who can't be kept out if they want to come here, whom Leavers are so worried about.
In view of the fact that the government has not been able to reduce non-EU immigration to 100,000 in the past 8 years, I don't see why anyone should think the government will be able to reduce non-EU immigration plus EU immigration to 100,000 in the next 10 years.
I'm also surprised that people are more happy to be less worried about the possibility of living next to a Frenchman or a Pole than they were less worried about living next to an Indian or a Jamaican.
Yes the details matter, but it wouldn't hurt to be a little more concise in your arguments.
Yeah it's called learn by rote. Only way to go when fingers get stuck in the ears and trying to repeat "aren't you being unkind to the Tories!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: ....... You're aware that historical archives are where all the government's documentation ends up if not destroyed, right? Even the personal data protected stuff?
Not these days for personal information. All personal information is given a 'destroy by date', however in this case it doesn't really apply because it precedes the current legislation. Failure to do this results in potentially large fines, even more so if the data is breached somehow. Ironically more than sending out military technical drawings.
And that records are kept of docket serials destroyed, so that you can trace roughly what happened to them? But that such records usually make no note of why the documents were destroyed or at precisely what stage the decision to destroy a given batch was made? And that political officials usually have sweet fancy adams to do with any of it or any real knowledge of the actual process? Making it impossible for Labour to 'release chapter and verse'? Because it's a departmental concern?
That's not really the issue. If May had turned round and said "this information was destroyed because it included personal information and data protection required us to destroy it after a certain date" then that would be perfectly fine. But she didn't. What she did was lie and mislead parliament in what she said. That is the issue I have. Now if it was some back bench person it would be less of an issue. But this is a person that was both in charge of the home office and is now PM. If she lies to parliament over, what is effectively a trifling point, then that means she effectively see parliament with contempt and raises the question as to what else she has misled them over. At that point democracy falls over because you can't have a rationale debate if the person effectively leading the country will lie at a drop of a hat to make their case.
At best perhaps she was covering her own behind because she had turned a blind eye to what was going on. However from my perspective that still makes someone a racist/bigot because they are comfortable to let that action continue. If she truly was opposed to those decisions then she would not have supported changing the legislation to make it harder for those that entered on parents passports 40-50 years ago to stay in the country and obtain medical treatment.
You are bizarrely insistent that you know the internal decision making process of the border agency well enough to insult the PM over it.
A business case is a business case, they don't really change because they are standard documents with the same principles. Not that they are generally very interesting documents mind. But I'm quite happy to oblige to point out the PMs (blatant) flaws. And I'm a bit concerned that you are so dismissive of such a 'pfiffling' concern given the impacts on UK citizens it is having, but hey nothing we should need to bother ourselves about right?
Former home secretary Alan Johnston has admitted the decision to destroy the mass of old paperwork in the cellar happened under his administration in 2009, think we can put to bed the conspiracy theories about May going down there with a shredder now!
There's probably a civil servant somewhere that's keeping his head down and hanging on to his final salary pension for dear life...
Now lets get back to Brexit news and evaluate whether Patrick Stuart can turn the tide!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: It really is a bit of a "papers, please" attitude the Tories have constructed with their immigration policies. Seems pretty "un-British" to me.
Political parties only reflect the opinion trends of society, immigration is not very popular so you win elections by promising to do something about it and following through with that promise.
If you want to criticise Tory immigration policy, you can easily do so by saying that it hasn't been very effective at reducing or stopping immigration (legal and illegal)!
Not these days for personal information. All personal information is given a 'destroy by date', however in this case it doesn't really apply because it precedes the current legislation. Failure to do this results in potentially large fines, even more so if the data is breached somehow. Ironically more than sending out military technical drawings.
I showed your messages to a friend employed at the National Archives. He says you are wrong. He then went on to talk about embargo periods and document types.
I'd relay the finer detail and go through the rest of your post, but frankly? Given I was amazed you were quibbling over this in the first place, I blame myself for getting sucked into debating the 'piffling' point (which as we both know, refers to the precise decision and responsibility for destroying the cards themselves).
Former home secretary Alan Johnston has admitted the decision to destroy the mass of old paperwork in the cellar happened under his administration in 2009, think we can put to bed the conspiracy theories about May going down there with a shredder now!
There's probably a civil servant somewhere that's keeping his head down and hanging on to his final salary pension for dear life...
Now lets get back to Brexit news and evaluate whether Patrick Stuart can turn the tide!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: It really is a bit of a "papers, please" attitude the Tories have constructed with their immigration policies. Seems pretty "un-British" to me.
Political parties only reflect the opinion trends of society, immigration is not very popular so you win elections by promising to do something about it and following through with that promise.
If you want to criticise Tory immigration policy, you can easily do so by saying that it hasn't been very effective at reducing or stopping immigration (legal and illegal)!
It is chicken and egg, or a vicious circle or some such analogy.
Political parties partly reflect public opinion, and public opinion is affected by the ways that political parties conduct themselves in opposition or in government.
For example, following the Enoch Powell rivers of blood speech, 50 years ago, there was an upsurge in anti-immigrant "hate" crimes, very similar to the upsurge that followed the EU Referendum result. In both cases, the "-ist" elements of the public felt their opinions to be validated by the race issue achieving such political prominence.
Given that Powell's predictions proved wrong, the problem in the past 10 years is that governments have pandered to the "-ist" element of society when they should instead have been emphasising the benefits of immigration, and the detriments of low immigration, and dealing a bit more sensitively with areas affected by high immigration.
E.g. Immigrants generate £ X billion of extra money in the UK economy.
Do you like chow mein? Chicken tikka? Northern soul music? They wouldn't exist without immigrants, so think what you would be losing...
But yeah, overall it's a failure of our political class to deal with the challenges.
No they don't, otherwise we wouldn't be in this farcical situation of 52% of the British public wanting out of the EU, but 2/3rds of MPs, the Lords, civil service etc etc wanting to stay in!
Look at the British public's attitude to the death penalty and immigration, and compare that to what the red/blue/yellow Blairites in the commons think on those issues.
The British public and MPs have been miles apart since at least the 1990s.
Anyway, that's not want I wanted to originally post about.
The other day in the EU parliament, Macron was talking about getting the Balkans into the EU
The Balkans!!! Feth me!
I think my attitude to the Middle East is well known on these pages: stay the feth away from it, and I have a similar sentiment to the Balkans.
The extremist political and paramilitary groups from Serbia/Bosnia/Croatia, and the criminal gangs of Albania and Kosovo, makes Northern Ireland look like a minor scuffle at the Women's Institute.
Get involved with that? Never!
If the EU want to get bogged down with that, good luck to them. Count me out.
Well, Slovenia has been in for a while. Croatia less so.
Besides massive improvement on both countries they've had to sort their still unsolved land and sea border issue which was a sore point in their relationship.
Serbia is taking strides towards compliance, but probably Bosnia will get there first.
It's a lovely place to live and do business with. Plenty of Brits there, too.
jouso wrote: Well, Slovenia has been in for a while. Croatia less so.
Besides massive improvement on both countries they've had to sort their still unsolved land and sea border issue which was a sore point in their relationship.
Serbia is taking strides towards compliance, but probably Bosnia will get there first.
It's a lovely place to live and do business with. Plenty of Brits there, too.
I don't doubt the beauty of those places, and I hope I'm not implying that everybody in the Balkans is a paramilitary or a Warlord on the run from The Hague and the UN or whatever.
but I'd like to direct my fellow dakka members to 2 points:
1. The recent news stories about journalists being murdered in Malta and Slovakia for investigating government corruption and links to organised crime
2. The vast quantities of important documents and data that passes between EU member states on a whole host of things.
Now, given the links of elements (not all) of the Serbian government to various crime gangs and assorted paramilitary nutters, and given the links between certain elements (not all) of the Albania government to some of the most ruthless and powerful crime gangs in Europe (the EU has criticised Albania in the past for this)
do we really want these nations to become EU members and potentially give crime gangs a gold mine of important data and sensitive documents?
Not me!
And there's the geopolitics of the EU clashing with Russia and Turkey in this region. It could be a gakstorm. It usually is in the Balkans if history has taught us anything.
If these nations cleaned up their acts and got their gak together, I'm sure they'd fit right into the EU, but Macron's full steam ahead approach is a tad premature in my book.
I showed your messages to a friend employed at the National Archives. He says you are wrong. He then went on to talk about embargo periods and document types.
I'm not sure this really helps. I pointed out these comments to a legal representative and concluded that your friends interpretation is incorrect when it comes to personal data. At this point I think we might be arguing about the semantics of legal interpretation and best practice in how that is enacted (apparently national archives don't follow it... ). From a legal perspective personal information should be dealt with in a different way.
I'd relay the finer detail and go through the rest of your post, but frankly? Given I was amazed you were quibbling over this in the first place, I blame myself for getting sucked into debating the 'piffling' point (which as we both know, refers to the precise decision and responsibility for destroying the cards themselves).
Strictly speaking that was because you pointed out that May had one over Corbyn where in reality she was lying when the actual decision to destroy the cards was under the Tory government not a Labour one. Albeit the business case to start clearing old paper records was taken earlier. So more it was defence of an original point rather than quibbling over it - else should we just stay silent as May is raised to sainthood on a false pretence?
but I'd like to direct my fellow dakka members to 2 points:
1. The recent news stories about journalists being murdered in Malta and Slovakia for investigating government corruption and links to organised crime
2. The vast quantities of important documents and data that passes between EU member states on a whole host of things.
Now, given the links of elements (not all) of the Serbian government to various crime gangs and assorted paramilitary nutters, and given the links between certain elements (not all) of the Albania government to some of the most ruthless and powerful crime gangs in Europe (the EU has criticised Albania in the past for this).
There's corruption and exploitation of personal data everywhere (take Facebook for example, or how many in the UK get swindled each year because of information being sold). Perhaps the Lycamobile issue and donations, or the Jeremy Hunt's property discount. Picking out a few high profile examples from other countries is not a reasonable way of making an informed decision without comparing all the data. Otherwise anyone can pick and choose any element as 'evidence' of a flawed interpretation - the world is flat because I can see the horizon is horizontal etc.
I'm glad we're out of it.
The country will be regretting it though when it is isolated and more exposed to manipulation because we go form being part of that collective to a country on the outside that will be manipulated in the same way the countries you are pointing at are. Your argument is effectively "look at how vulnerable those countries outside the EU are - why should they be in the EU. This is why we should be outside the EU because...erh..we will be more vulnerable".
has some interesting points about Brexit and the creative arts
It’s important to note at this point that music is not a subsidiary, luxury, minor industry for the UK. We are the second biggest provider of music to the world after the USA. Music is of enormous benefit to us as a country. That is a fact, not an opinion. Nor is it special pleading. For a modern, developed country to deliberately, wilfully strangle one of its lead exporters is bordering on insane. Indeed, the Creative Industries as a whole are the fastest-growing sector in our economy, worth last year just under £100bn to our national coffers (to put that in context, in 2016 the NHS cost us £115bn). The Creative Industries Federation are deeply concerned about the knock-on effects of Brexit on this sector and have published their concerns accordingly: https://www.creativeindustriesfederation.com/newsletter-archive/brexit-report-impact-leaving-eu-uks-creative-industries
A little post-script to the use of my music and my working in the US as compared to my doing so in the EU: the US applies an at-source ‘withholding tax’ to any earnings I make there. Nice for the US economy. I am not then taxed a second time on that income in the UK (as far as I know!). However, if I work in France or Spain or the Czech Republic, 100% of the taxable part of that income goes to the UK exchequer to help our economy. When/If we leave the EU, withholding tax will undoubtedly be raised by EU member states since we will then be outside its harmonised tax regime, as a third party state. The UK exchequer loses out, again.
You’d imagine, perhaps, that being a professional composer might not be as severely affected by the end of Freedom of Movement within Europe as one would as a player, or as a highly-skilled video editor, sound engineer, or App developer. It’s true that the music itself will still be performed, in my case that means all over the world.
Anyone who’s ever been on holiday in Asia will have seen that copyright piracy is more or less endemic in these would-be vast markets for music and other creative forms. You can buy a DVD or a CD of more or less anything off the street, not to mention software programs or video games, and no-one is paying the creators of this work a cent for doing so. This includes, for example, the music that I write for the Mr Bean films, TV programmes and animated movies that have a massive audience all over the world. The laws that protect copyright-holders have during the past 40 years been harmonised across the EU and we as individuals, never mind individual countries, have unquantifiably more clout in negotiating with other territories as a unified group than on our own. It’s baffling why I even need to spell this out in the 21st century, as if there’s anyone left alive who doesn’t get this simple fact of the market place.
As it happens, European copyright laws have during my 40-year career as a professional composer been far more protective towards me and my fellow creators than our own UK government. That applies to the children of creators too. Thanks to our membership of the EU, in 1995, the UK’s old copyright term, life of the writer + 50 years, was increased to life of writer + 70 years.
The first giant wave of copyright piracy (let’s call it what it is – theft) was back in the day of cassette recorders. The music industry’s losses to cassette copying in the 1980s were seismic, even when compared to modern-day internet piracy. Creators’ organisations asked merely that there might be a small levy (15p I seem to remember was the figure proposed in the mid-80s) placed on the sale of every blank cassette to remunerate all the composers and musicians whose work was being ripped off by millions every day. The EU backed this request but the UK Tory government of the time, lobbied by the companies who were profiting from selling the cassettes and players, refused to grant the levy. The EU also responded to creators’ requests for the granting of so-called ‘Moral’ rights to writers, composers and copyright holders, so that, in an era where media were increasingly being transferred on, re-sold, syndicated and otherwise re-distributed, the original makers of a work would have to be acknowledged. Along with acknowledgement of someone’s contribution to a film, or record, or TV programme came a much greater likelihood that they would be remunerated as their work was shunted on down the line from enterprise to enterprise. Moral rights were therefore a good, fair idea and were also forward-thinking to the world of media distribution that is the norm in our new century. Guess what? The EU granted the rights and the Tory government in the UK took them away by satute (in 1988). Which, incidentally, rather refutes the Brexiteer trope that the EU ‘imposes’ its laws on our parliament.
...
I write books. I’ve written two on the history of music that – in their modest way – are best-sellers in their field (I know I’m not exactly JK Rowling or Dan Brown, but they have been translated into many languages and are still on sale throughout the world).
Why would Brexit affect these sales? Well, surprise surprise, the ramifications of our leaving the EU are likely to impact badly on British publishers for all sorts of reasons. I am guessing the average book-reader (and referendum voter) has been totally unaware of these issues. There’s a New York Times article about all this which summarises the problems:
It does not make easy reading. The nub of it is that the difference to an author when we are no longer inside the EU is the difference between earning about a £1 royalty from the sale of a hardback, and earning a 10p royalty from the same book. Quite a big difference. Nadine Dorries MP is an author herself. I wonder if she knows that the re-configuring of British books as ‘export’ to the EU rather than ‘home market’, or that the UK will have to fight off competition from the much bigger US publishing houses for the sale of English-language books in Europe, is one of the consequences of the Brexit she espouses?
and the EU and Mexico have made a new trade agreement.
Anybody else reading the news about corruption investigation into some delegates inside the Council of Europe?
Apparently there is more and more evidence that a German CDU delegate by the name of Karin Strenz failed to declare conflicts of interest concerning her involvement in operations with EU election observers in Azerbaijan, having allegedly received some kind of compensation or funds from the local government in the past.
I'm sure this will make DINLT very happy but - let's be clear here, corruption is not okay, not here and not elsewhere, so I'm very happy if they manage to throw the book at her. She has already failed multiple times to show up at hearings requested by a team of judges, so things might get interesting.
Witzkatz wrote: Anybody else reading the news about corruption investigation into some delegates inside the Council of Europe?
Apparently there is more and more evidence that a German CDU delegate by the name of Karin Strenz failed to declare conflicts of interest concerning her involvement in operations with EU election observers in Azerbaijan, having allegedly received some kind of compensation or funds from the local government in the past.
I'm sure this will make DINLT very happy but - let's be clear here, corruption is not okay, not here and not elsewhere, so I'm very happy if they manage to throw the book at her. She has already failed multiple times to show up at hearings requested by a team of judges, so things might get interesting.
All EPP members are disgusting due to their support for Orban's antisemitic victory in Hungary. He should be ejected from the EPP for failure to respect democratic norms. They're scum. I can't wait til the next EU election to vote the lot of them out.
Witzkatz wrote: Anybody else reading the news about corruption investigation into some delegates inside the Council of Europe?
Apparently there is more and more evidence that a German CDU delegate by the name of Karin Strenz failed to declare conflicts of interest concerning her involvement in operations with EU election observers in Azerbaijan, having allegedly received some kind of compensation or funds from the local government in the past.
According to some on here, it was probably the same sort of honest mistake as when Reese-Mogg forgot to declare some interests.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Unemployed mother living on State Benefits in a tax payer funded home far larger than her basic requirements is about to have her third child.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Unemployed mother living on State Benefits in a tax payer funded home far larger than her basic requirements is about to have her third child.
"It calls the Project Fear campaign, spearheaded by the former chancellor George Osborne, as a “giant error” and a “gross miscarriage of government”.
They were out to the tune of 100 billion pounds
Not exactly loose change down the back of the couch.
As I've said before to Remain supporters on these pages, you didn't lose the referendum because of UKIP, or Farage, or racist Leave voters or whatever. You lost because of the ineptitude of two smug and incompetent gits. One of whom is pictured in the article I linked to.
The man was a disgrace of a chancellor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Witzkatz wrote: Anybody else reading the news about corruption investigation into some delegates inside the Council of Europe?
Apparently there is more and more evidence that a German CDU delegate by the name of Karin Strenz failed to declare conflicts of interest concerning her involvement in operations with EU election observers in Azerbaijan, having allegedly received some kind of compensation or funds from the local government in the past.
I'm sure this will make DINLT very happy but - let's be clear here, corruption is not okay, not here and not elsewhere, so I'm very happy if they manage to throw the book at her. She has already failed multiple times to show up at hearings requested by a team of judges, so things might get interesting.
I'm happy, but I'm not happy if you know what I mean. Britain is not perfect, and I'm the first to admit it. We have crime and corruption in this country, and it makes me mad, but I don't like this narrative in the Remain supporting media that the UK is a cesspit of criminality, whilst the EU is this whiter than white paradise of progress.
I agree with you that corruption needs to be stamped out wherever it is, be it in the UK or be it in the EU or Germany.
Ultimately the story of Brexit is the story of the Tory Party trying not to get ripped apart by its internal contradictions.
May is rumoured to be accelerating the vote to a "confidence vote", which if lost causes the fall of the government. This enables the party whips to put more pressure on the rebels to conform.
I doubt it will happen, but it would be very interesting if it did.
If we don’t leave the customs union then we don’t leave the eu. The whole thing will have been a complete waste of time and it’ll confirm my believe that your vote means jack gak if it’s inconvenient to the establishment.
"According to a study" when the study isn't even linked because it hasn't been released yet is dishonest beyond belief. It's a failure to understand the basics of methodology and how academic sciences work. That MSN article is completely worthless until we can actually see the study in question.
Future War Cultist wrote: If we don’t leave the customs union then we don’t leave the eu. The whole thing will have been a complete waste of time and it’ll confirm my believe that your vote means jack gak if it’s inconvenient to the establishment.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but it doesn't cover all the range of goods and hopefully services that the UK wants to cover.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "According to a study" when the study isn't even linked because it hasn't been released yet is dishonest beyond belief. It's a failure to understand the basics of methodology and how academic sciences work. That MSN article is completely worthless until we can actually see the study in question.
Pretty much that. Economic forecasts for the most part give you an idea of trends. If the EU economies are doing better than expected (as they are) the UK benefits, even if it's now in the back of the wagon rather than leading it.
I wouldn't be surprised if that study is comparing the hard brexit scenario with a Brexit delayed for 2 years as it's the case now, though.
Future War Cultist wrote: If we don’t leave the customs union then we don’t leave the eu. The whole thing will have been a complete waste of time and it’ll confirm my believe that your vote means jack gak if it’s inconvenient to the establishment.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but it doesn't cover all the range of goods and hopefully services that the UK wants to cover.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well,well,well,well,well.
In news that doesn't surprise me in the least.
New report slams Project Fear's Brexit projections as pure horsegak:
So just to clarify... This is MSN posting an article from the Brexit-backing Telegraph newspaper, which cites a report, authored by a man who has stood as a UKIP candidate in a general election, published in a right-leaning magazine which noted Brexiteers Frank Field, Nigel Lawson and Michael Gove sits on the advisory board of.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well,well,well,well,well.
In news that doesn't surprise me in the least.
New report slams Project Fear's Brexit projections as pure horsegak:
So just to clarify... This is MSN posting an article from the Brexit-backing Telegraph newspaper, which cites a report, authored by a man who has stood as a UKIP candidate in a general election, published in a right-leaning magazine which noted Brexiteers Frank Field, Nigel Lawson and Michael Gove sits on the advisory board of.
Is there a message beyond "Group of people desparate for Brexit to happen about to publish thing they hope will convince the public Brexit not as bad as all reputable sources tell them it will" ?
Somehow you took that nothingball and ran with it all the way to the "You should blame Osborne for everything and here is the proof" touchline.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well,well,well,well,well.
In news that doesn't surprise me in the least.
New report slams Project Fear's Brexit projections as pure horsegak:
So just to clarify... This is MSN posting an article from the Brexit-backing Telegraph newspaper, which cites a report, authored by a man who has stood as a UKIP candidate in a general election, published in a right-leaning magazine which noted Brexiteers Frank Field, Nigel Lawson and Michael Gove sits on the advisory board of.
I'm just the messenger, not the message.
No, MSN is the messenger of the Daily Telegraph who is the messenger of Standpoint magazine who is the messenger of whatever bloke wrote the article.
When you get to that level of abstraction you own the stuff you've chosen to promulgate even further.
The article has the same problems as the last "Brexit is Great" article (you posted.)
1. The author has cherry picked some economic factors which he says are valuable indicators but they aren't necessarily.
2. Brexit hasn't happened yet anyway.
3. The worst predictions of Project Fear were avoided partly by the preparations and actions of the Bank of England to support the economy when the vote went wrong.
4. There have been bad effects even so, such as increased inflation.
5. There isn't anything positive. There's nothing Brexiteers can point to and say, here is clear evidence that Brexit is going to be great. All they can say is that so far it isn't as bad as the worst predictions.
All that being said, the Leave side of Brexit is mainly about identity politics, and economic arguments are relatively unimportant. This is part of why both sides keep talking past each other.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well,well,well,well,well.
In news that doesn't surprise me in the least.
New report slams Project Fear's Brexit projections as pure horsegak:
So just to clarify... This is MSN posting an article from the Brexit-backing Telegraph newspaper, which cites a report, authored by a man who has stood as a UKIP candidate in a general election, published in a right-leaning magazine which noted Brexiteers Frank Field, Nigel Lawson and Michael Gove sits on the advisory board of.
Also Gove has had enough of experts. So we can either conclude the author isn't an expert in the area or Gove doesn't believe what is written in it!
In other news if Liverpool win the Champion League then most of Merseyside will probably join Klopp in not wanting to the leave the EU. That should be enough to win a new referendum!
It also appears that the Government is not really understanding the Windrush issue. They are now proposing that the Home Office is exempt from providing members of the public access to their own records
So they are guarantueeing people UK citizenship if they can prove this, at the same time removing their ability to ask for evidence from the Home Office to prove this? So in essence the Home Office can determine whether to kick you out or not...
OK, I’m a Remainer, but I hope even the most ardent Brexiteers can see that a declaration of Human Rights has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with our membership of the EU. This is just a power grab by the Tories, which was exactly what everyone was concerned about when they started talking about using Henry the VIII rights to make “minor adjustments”.
Oh, and having some familiarity with the UK immigration system, human rights is one of the key criteria for a number of catagories. Like the right to be with your spouse/partner/child/parents and not be refused entry or deported away from them (a la Windrush).
I think you are right (at least, I hope so!), she will have to cave in on the Customs Union and Single Market possibly by the end. Otherwise there is no solution to the Border issue, and the UK would be in violation of the GFA. That is, unless it gives special status to Northern Ireland, which May has also ruled out to keep her homophobe-bros online.
But it's not because she has no spine, that award has to go to Johnson, who'd rather complain from the sidelines than do the hard job. It's because the EU has all the cards and Britain is much weaker than the EU as a whole. It's just how the world works.
I do think there is a risk that if May agrees to it a CU, that the Hard Brexiteers will vote no confidence in her as a leader with the 1922 committee and she might be dethroned. But the thing is, I'm not sure any of the Hard Brexiteers really want to be in charge either - leadership of Britain is a poisoned chalice now that the country is so divided and any leader who takes over is likely to have a torrid time of it. That's how May has lasted so long, despite her obvious staggering incompetence.
He said: “What happened to the mother of parliaments? What happened to the concept of the sovereignty of this parliament? We’re prepared, apparently, to abandon it in favour of a body of foreign law because we no longer trust ourselves to protect our own fundamental human rights. Is that what we’ve really come to? It is a shocking denouement.
“The idea that we’re going to have to cling on to a body of foreign law in order to maintain fundamental human rights in this country is simply astonishing. It would reflect not only a constitutional outrage but a total abdication of our responsibilities.”
Because the ECHR has never had to intervene in the UK. No. Not at all.
I don’t trust our government one millimetre on human rights. I trust our courts, but they are limited by the law, and if the UK government changes the law then courts must follow.
The ECHR is not part of the EU, it is part of the Council of Europe.
The UK is bound by the EU human rights directive because the EU is bound by the Council of Europe treaties on human rights.
If the UK leaves the EU, it will not leave the Council of Europe, and the government will have to create new legislation (presumably identical to the current legislation) to satisfy the UK's treaty obligations to the ECHR.
Statue of Millicent Fawcett was unveiled by a delegation led by Theresa May & Sadiq Khan in Parliament Square today, the first female statue there. lots of other people present, from Corbyn to Harman.
Ketara wrote: Statue of Millicent Fawcett was unveiled by a delegation led by Theresa May & Sadiq Khan in Parliament Square today, the first female statue there. lots of other people present, from Corbyn to Harman.
I'm glad they chose Fawcett for this over Pankhurst, the Suffragists had far more to do with women getting the vote than the Suffragettes imo.
Looking at who else has one, I'm kinda surprised that Aneurin Bevan doesn't have a statue. Maybe I've just spent too much time in Wales!
Kilkrazy wrote: The ECHR is not part of the EU, it is part of the Council of Europe.
The UK is bound by the EU human rights directive because the EU is bound by the Council of Europe treaties on human rights.
If the UK leaves the EU, it will not leave the Council of Europe, and the government will have to create new legislation (presumably identical to the current legislation) to satisfy the UK's treaty obligations to the ECHR.
I know they are not linked, but the only reason I can see for wanting to scrap the current law, which basically amounts to “we will follow the European convention on human rights and be bound by rulings of the court”, is to dilute the law. Probably to remove all the annoying bits about it covering everyone, including foreigners and criminals and other such people the tabloid press don’t like.
Maybe it's another one of those odd shibboleths that Brexiteers cling to in defiance of the facts, like the blue passports and the fishing quotas, and May is just sucking up to the UKIP wing of the Tory Party.
Crazyterran wrote: If the papacy and the Italian Government is willing to take the kid to Rome, i dont see why the UK doctors and courts are putting up a fight.
Because the child is dead, for all intents and purposes. His brain is annihilated. He is being taken apart, rapidly, by an undiagnosed (and seemingly undiagnoseable by current medical science) disease, and if he is capable of feeling anything at all anymore, he is suffering. He cannot recover unless we discover how to rebuild braincells. No one who is offering to take him is offering to perform any more tests, let alone making any suggestion that they can even begin to think about healing him. What they are offering to do, is take money to move him to another hospital and not stop manually feeding him and making him breath. Every person talking about how the courts should 'give Alfie a chance' is woefully ignorant of the facts.
UK doctors and courts do not want to send a suffering child for whom any recovery is at this point impossible to be artificially kept alive for money and the eternal heartbreak of his parents.
UK doctors and courts do not want to send a suffering child for whom any recovery is at this point impossible to be artificially kept alive for money and the eternal heartbreak of his parents.
Yea it's not like anyone on either side is trying to make him suffer, the Judge has looked impartially at the evidence and decided that it is cruel to continue extending the poor lad's life with no chance of improvement
Regardless of what you think of this case, there are many other sick children in that hospital. This mob must be scaring them and their families. Not to mention the extra stress and abuse the staff are coming under. Appalling behaviour.
Also: "Earlier the supporters blocked the road outside the hospital for about 15 minutes, with an ambulance becoming trapped as traffic quickly backed up."
Okay it was let go but did they delay that ambulance even a bit? Delaying ambulance should be no-go. Maybe that was not on a mission or it was not high-priority case but what if it was imperitave that the ambulance reach hospital asap?
Protesting should be allowed but not in a way that causes harm to others nevermind risk other people's lives.
Regular posters here will no doubt be familiar with my tough stance on the crime that blights this great nation, so it gives me no pleasure to once again highlight an increase in crime!
Alexa Bradley, who focuses on crime statistics and analysis for the ONS, wrote: the two sets of figures showed the "picture of crime" had been "fairly stable", with levels much lower than the peak seen in the mid-1990s.
So yes, crime is up, but it is up from historically low levels and hasn't nearly reached historically high levels.
While we shouldn't be complacent, the picture is hardly the post-apocalyptic wasteland promised for after Brexit.
I wonder if rising crime always attends a Tory administration?
It is sad to see. Here in Northern Ireland paramilitary punishments are also on the rise. It’s a catch 22 for us over here; we have less muggings, burglaries and hard drug use than I imagine England Scotland and wales have but it comes at the cost of shadowy gangsters all over the place who will quite literally blow your leg off if you draw attention to yourself.
I have personal experience of it. My cousin was ‘put out’ of his home area for various crimes (car theft and assault), and somebody was recently shot at the end of my aunts street. Oh, and my cousin was awoken one night to find that her neighbour had been beaten to a bloody pulp right outside her door. His crime was smoking pot and having loud parties. I don’t know what the punishment for that is in the rest of the uk but here it’s apparently a fractured eye socket and severe blood loss.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Regular posters here will no doubt be familiar with my tough stance on the crime that blights this great nation, so it gives me no pleasure to once again highlight an increase in crime!
The courts and judges have their hands tied, and the Police seem unwilling to do anything about it
Normally, I would say the country's going to the dogs, but we're moving beyond that
Read your own links. Please.
BBC article that you just linked yourself wrote:A separate survey on the public's experience of crimes in the two countries said there had been no change in overall violent offences.
The reason you get shot down repeatedly is because what you think is black and white evidence isn't, and you're too stubborn and/or ignorant to realize this despite having been called out multiple times on the issue already. Stop it.
There's also a rather marked difference, as Kilkrazy pointed out, between a rise in crime and "criminal gangs roaming the street with impunity". You're trying, and failing, to deal with matters of methodology that you clearly do not understand. Again. For the umpteenth time.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Regular posters here will no doubt be familiar with my tough stance on the crime that blights this great nation, so it gives me no pleasure to once again highlight an increase in crime!
Crime is up, a natural consequence of gutting the police forces. No-one (apart of May) is trying to deny that.
However, the UK is not the crime ridden dystopia you seem to think it is.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Regular posters here will no doubt be familiar with my tough stance on the crime that blights this great nation, so it gives me no pleasure to once again highlight an increase in crime!
Crime is up, a natural consequence of gutting the police forces. No-one (apart of May) is trying to deny that.
However, the UK is not the crime ridden dystopia you seem to think it is.
Just reading past the headline would have shown that the headline doesn't match most of the content in the article.
Alexa Bradley, who focuses on crime statistics and analysis for the ONS, wrote: the two sets of figures showed the "picture of crime" had been "fairly stable", with levels much lower than the peak seen in the mid-1990s.
So yes, crime is up, but it is up from historically low levels and hasn't nearly reached historically high levels.
While we shouldn't be complacent, the picture is hardly the post-apocalyptic wasteland promised for after Brexit.
I wonder if rising crime always attends a Tory administration?
Well, the Tories have been in power for the vast majority of the last 100 years, so you're probably right about crime.
It is sad to see. Here in Northern Ireland paramilitary punishments are also on the rise. It’s a catch 22 for us over here; we have less muggings, burglaries and hard drug use than I imagine England Scotland and wales have but it comes at the cost of shadowy gangsters all over the place who will quite literally blow your leg off if you draw attention to yourself.
I have personal experience of it. My cousin was ‘put out’ of his home area for various crimes (car theft and assault), and somebody was recently shot at the end of my aunts street. Oh, and my cousin was awoken one night to find that her neighbour had been beaten to a bloody pulp right outside her door. His crime was smoking pot and having loud parties. I don’t know what the punishment for that is in the rest of the uk but here it’s apparently a fractured eye socket and severe blood loss.
Yeah, sadly, that's the price to be paid in the name of peace - turning a blind eye to former paramilitaries turned gangsters.
I have no doubt that the security services and PSNI know them all, but their hands are probably tied.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Regular posters here will no doubt be familiar with my tough stance on the crime that blights this great nation, so it gives me no pleasure to once again highlight an increase in crime!
Crime is up, a natural consequence of gutting the police forces. No-one (apart of May) is trying to deny that.
However, the UK is not the crime ridden dystopia you seem to think it is.
Well, you wouldn't catch me walking the streets of London after dark, that's for sure.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Regular posters here will no doubt be familiar with my tough stance on the crime that blights this great nation, so it gives me no pleasure to once again highlight an increase in crime!
Crime is up, a natural consequence of gutting the police forces. No-one (apart of May) is trying to deny that.
However, the UK is not the crime ridden dystopia you seem to think it is.
Just reading past the headline would have shown that the headline doesn't match most of the content in the article.
Knife and gun crime is up - and that's a fact. The rest is just blather.
A quick back of an envelope tot-up shows that Conservatives have formed the government in 53 of the past 100 years. If you count the coalition of 2010-15 as Conservative, it's 58/42.
Crime has been trending down for a long time, due to various societal improvements.
Crime hype is probably up, due to our obsession with it, on-demand news and social media.
Well, you wouldn't catch me walking the streets of London after dark, that's for sure.
Yet literally tens of thousands do and live to tell the tale. Sure there are probably parts of London I'd avoid on my own, it's still not a crime ridden dystopia with gangs roving the street with impunity.
Reality and statistics just don't agree with your take on crime.
Knife and gun crime is up - and that's a fact. The rest is just blather.
And so are acid attacks. But it's still a very small part of the picture.
Knife crime is down in Scotland, though. They have been policing it with different methods to the Met(ropolitan) Police. Apparently they treat it like a public health epidemic, rather than as isolated instances of criminality
so we've got Theresa May who has full confidence in Amber Rudd, who is facing calls to resign over terrible things that mainly happened at the Home Office when Theresa May was running it.
[quote=Do_I_Not_Like_That 724548 9948748 6b6299a0e27a2d6386133e3a3a4e49af.jpg Well, you wouldn't catch me walking the streets of London after dark, that's for sure.
I do, on a near daily basis when I'm actually in the UK. I've never been or seen anywhere that would give me any sort of worry. In fact, I rather like walking London in the evenings, people seem to be a lot more mellow and friendly after dark. My observation anyway. But are you sure you don't write for the Sun or the Mail? You seem to have gotten their sensationalist writing style down a T.
so we've got Theresa May who has full confidence in Amber Rudd, who is facing calls to resign over terrible things that mainly happened at the Home Office when Theresa May was running it.
.. you couldn't write his eh ?
who could ;possibly have foreseen etc etc etc
As a non wargaming related image, is that allowed? I ask because Creed had his taken down. Have the rules changed?
I don't see how anyone could be surprised that the extra paperwork caused by Brexit would lead to increase administrative fees. I wonder how many times the Mail and Express have used the "EU must be joking" line?
It is funny though how these new rules or proposals are coming out now at this particular point in time. If I was cynical, which I am, I’d say it was motivated by spite.
It is funny though how these new rules or proposals are coming out now at this particular point in time. If I was cynical, which I am, I’d say it was motivated by spite.
More likely the process to Brexit is a long negotiation which takes several years, and no-one could think about all the details right at the beginning.
Some of us Remainers were talking about the possible future difficulty of visas last year. Though I must say I thought we would go back to the old pre-1971 system. That said, IDK if visas cost anything to process back then.
It was also pointed out during the referendum but was -- surprise ! -- dismissed as more scaremongering.
TBF it's not impossible that the UK could negotiate some form of membership or exemption but that of course would rely upon the people doing our Brexit negotiations not being effectively useless.
It's really not that different that the visa one needs to go to the USA
British tabloids roared in disapproval on Thursday (26 April), after EU diplomats advanced plans for new border checks and fees.
"EU must be joking!" the Daily Mail, the headline of one top-selling newspaper said. "BREXIT BOMBSHELL: Britons could be forced to pay €7 for European visa after EU split," the Daily Express, another anti-EU paper, said.
The reference to a "European visa" was misleading, but the new European Travel Information and Authorisation System (Etias), agreed on Wednesday, will impose "a travel authorisation fee of €7" on all "visa-exempt third country nationals" when it enters into life.
Etias, which is modelled on the US visa-waiver system, is designed to increase border security in times of mass migration and a heightened terrorist threat.
Visitors to the EU, including from the US, will have to file an online application, which will be cross-checked against EU states' crime databases and those of Interpol, the international police agency.
Most will get a travel permit "automatically and quickly" and the €7 fee will keep them covered for three years.
But if the databases score a "hit", or if there are "doubts" or "elements requiring further analysis" they will be told - within 96 hours - that they were denied entry into Europe's so-called Schengen travel zone, which includes 26 countries.
That was the deal agreed by EU member states' ambassadors in Brussels on Wednesday.
It is likely to enter into force by 2020 after MEPs and member states add final touches.
"We will be better able to stop those who may pose a threat to our citizens," Valentin Radev, the interior minister of Bulgaria, which holds the EU presidency, said on Wednesday.
"We need to know who is crossing our borders," the European Commission, which first proposed the scheme, said.
It said Etias was needed not just for security reasons, but also to reduce "migration risks of travellers benefiting from visa-free access to the Schengen area".
The British tabloids roared because the UK will become a "visa-exempt third country" when it exits the EU next year, falling under Etias, unless it negotiates an exemption.
Border problems already lie at the heart of Brexit talks, amid questions on how to keep free movement between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland when the UK leaves.
The Daily Mail promoted the idea of one British MP that the UK should impose a £10 (€11) on EU travellers in return for Etias to raise an extra £150m a year for the British treasury.
The British papers said the Schengen fee would raise money for the EU budget, but that was also partly misleading.
The Etias scheme is to cost €200m to launch and around €85m a year to maintain, the EU said.
There were 39 million visitors to the EU last year. If each one paid €7, it would generate €273m in revenues, helping to cover Etias costs, but the figure would diminish in subsequent years due to the three-year duration of the Etias permits.
What is depressingly predictable is the reaction -- see above -- of the papers and the anti EU crowd.
They're the ones who are making things more awkward.
For example :
Professional Liar Dan Hannon has been tweeting again :
Turkey is in the customs union, yet it has heavily policed borders with the EU. Norway and Switzerland are not, and have free-movement deals with their neighbours like that between Ireland and the U.K. Their borders are largely unmanned and invisible.
Goods intended for final import into Swiss customs territory must be delivered to a Swiss customs office and declared for customs clearance. The accompanying documents listed below must be presented along with the duly completed import customs declaration.
When you land at Geneva Airport with the intention of driving onwards, you have a choice. You can pass through Swiss immigration and head straight for the car hire desks. Alternatively, you can go up an escalator, along a corridor and cross into the French sector where the same multinational car hire companies will offer you a different deal.
Swiss regulations insist that hire cars have winter tyres fitted between the autumn and spring and they will also have a “vignette”, paying the annual SFR 40 ($40) road tax allowing the car to drive on Switzerland’s motorways. Cars hired from the French side have neither and often differ in specifications, but are generally much cheaper. From the same rental company, it is currently possible to hire a family car for the February half-term holiday for roughly half the price if you are willing to pick it up and return it to the French sector of the airport.
Even though car hire is a competitive business with essentially the same product on offer, the national border separates markets and allows price variations far in excess of the product quality differences on offer. It is bad news for Switzerland, where consumers have to pay more even though the regulatory differences are minimal.
If you choose to save the money, and accept you cannot drive on Swiss motorways without a further charge, you will soon notice other ways in which borders matter. As you come to the end of the airport approach road and hang a right, aiming to drive through Geneva city centre and then back into France, you are immediately stopped by heavy border infrastructure.
Three beige buildings with French and Swiss customs confront you, along with offices for both tax authorities. Europeans, accustomed to crossing other internal land borders within the EU, find this quite odd. Switzerland is part of the EU’s Schengen area, so there are no passport checks required for entry. For food and almost all tradeable industrial and agricultural goods, Switzerland’s regulations are also fully aligned with those of the EU. Both sides accept the others’ regulations. In reality, the Swiss copy and paste Brussels regulations into their domestic laws, allowing the landlocked state effectively to be a member of the EU single market for goods.
Border infrastructure and customs declarations are necessary, however, because Switzerland is not part of the EU’s customs union or value added tax regime, which are separate from the single market. This difference requires both sides to build and staff a hard border with sometimes significant delays.
The French worry that someone might, for example, buy a frighteningly expensive Swiss watch, receive a Swiss tax refund since the watch is for export, and then not declare it for French VAT. The Swiss rigorously check that people have not spent more than €300 each on goods from France, depriving its exchequer of sales taxes.
For trading companies, each load requires a customs declaration, multiple forms and stamps by the tax authorities to ensure that the formalities are closed on each side before goods cross the tax border. Within the Union none of this applies because complete regulatory alignment is married to an EU VAT regime, all within the customs union. This VAT system has its problems, but ensures that goods can flow across borders with no formalities.
The Swiss-French border is efficient. There are no applicable tariffs. Regulations for goods are fully aligned. There is a common travel area between the two countries without the need for passport checks. But the border requires hard infrastructure because Switzerland is not in the EU VAT regime nor its customs union. Border frictions have separated markets either side of the border to the detriment of consumers.
Regulatory alignment would remove only some of Brexit’s border barriers in Ireland. The UK and Ireland should take note.
But why let the actual facts get in the way of a rant about how the EU are being mean and blah blah etc etc.
Future War Cultist wrote: If we don’t leave the customs union then we don’t leave the eu. The whole thing will have been a complete waste of time and it’ll confirm my believe that your vote means jack gak if it’s inconvenient to the establishment.
Lets be fair, there was a nonbinding referendum to "remain in, or leave, the EU", with absolutely no clearly stated goal beyond that, no further detail of what leaving would mean, what it would entail, or how it would be done, and then the government took the result as a binding mandate and had to define all those things...after the vote.
So, it's hard to stick the government for making a vote meaningless when the issue voted on was almost completely undefined in the first place
There was an interesting piece on Radio 4 this afternoon. They have been doing a series on the high-tech industries the UK is rather good at, which form our future hopes of national prosperity.
You can probably guess where this is going...
Anyway, today's report was on a company making virtual reality training systems for medical purposes. These systems have haptic feedback, allowing the student to experience the sensation of pushing a needle into flesh, without the need for a live patient to endanger theirself at this point of the new doctor's training.
So, blah di blah the reporter is highly impressed (and sickened) by the realism of the simulation of pushing needles into virtual cheeks and tongues, and decides he won't retrain as a surgeon.
Reporter's next question: How does Brexit affect you?
VR Scientist: Well. we've already lost a couple of big contracts because of the uncertainty.
As well as that, I don't think the government understands that this kind of science isn't done by a few academics in a small room any more. It's big science. It needs a lot of investment. We won't be getting the Future 2020 funding any more.
Reporter: If you could say one thing to the PM and David Davis, etc, what is the most important thing?
VR Scientist: It's about the people. A visa system won't give the scientists and researchers the freedom they need to move around. I'm worried we won't be able to attract the talent.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe he is posting from the future, after Brexit has turned Britain into a Mad Max style psot-apocalyptic wasteland.
Well as a supporter of Wrexit I can imagine then DINLT benefits from leaving. In such cases I think I know who DINLT really is....And the answer is Tina Turner!
In other news Theresa May is getting the decorators in to Number 10 making one of the rooms nothing but gold with plenty of showers...
VR Scientist: It's about the people. A visa system won't give the scientists and researchers the freedom they need to move around. I'm worried we won't be able to attract the talent.
Tomorrow -- Artificial Intelligence.
The Day after - Is there any intelligence in the Tory party?
Sensibly it doesn't really seem to compute with the current government that science is no longer about sitting under a tree waiting for an apple to drop. It works on a mulitnational basis. Scientists work for months and months in universities on sabbaticals as part of their research. The more restrictions that the government place on immigration the harder it is to work in this way. If you are EU scientist the idea that you could work for three months in the EU on a project and then come back to find your rights revoked is horrifying. The govenment make all the right sounds, but in reality they won't achieve anything if the people that make it happen simply don't want to be here.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe he is posting from the future, after Brexit has turned Britain into a Mad Max style psot-apocalyptic wasteland.
Well as a supporter of Wrexit I can imagine then DINLT benefits from leaving. In such cases I think I know who DINLT really is....And the answer is Tina Turner!
In other news Theresa May is getting the decorators in to Number 10 making one of the rooms nothing but gold with plenty of showers...
If he comes to London, President Trump will experience an open and diverse city that has always chosen unity over division and hope over fear. He will also no doubt see that Londoners hold their liberal values of freedom of speech very dear.
Since when the feth did Sadiq Khan care about Free Speech? It was only last month that he was labelling a tweet from a Female Genital Mutilation campaigner criticising his inaction on FGM as "Hate Speech".
But now that Trump's coming to town, all of a sudden he's all over Free Speech? I call bullgak..
If he comes to London, President Trump will experience an open and diverse city that has always chosen unity over division and hope over fear. He will also no doubt see that Londoners hold their liberal values of freedom of speech very dear.
Since when the feth did Sadiq Khan care about Free Speech? It was only last month that he was labelling a tweet from a Female Genital Mutilation campaigner criticising his inaction on FGM as "Hate Speech".
But now that Trump's coming to town, all of a sudden he's all over Free Speech? I call bullgak..
Count Dankula? Crap tasteless joke invoking a pug equals arrest, trail, conviction, massive fine and criminal record. Girl quotes dead friends favourite rap song as a tribute and gets convicted too?
He was convicted for perverting the course of justice if I recall. He wasn't arrested because he was displaying a finger at the police. He was convicted because he threw the laser jammer into the river and tried to cover his tracks (literally).
The police probably though he would make a good example of because he was flipping them the finger. Driving around in a personalised Range Rover, speeding, whilst deliberately antagonising the police basically implies the person has about 3 brain cells. If he hadn't brought attention to himself then he would have probably got away with it.
This one is complicated. The child has no ability to express it's wishes, is probably suffering and is largely in a vegetative state with no real hope of improvement (because they have no idea what the problem is).
Count Dankula? Crap tasteless joke invoking a pug equals arrest, trail, conviction, massive fine and criminal record. Girl quotes dead friends favourite rap song as a tribute and gets convicted too?
No, we do not have free speech in this country.
Never have had free speech in the UK. We're one of the most restrictive western democracies in that regard.
The EU, however, has the Charter of Fundemental human rights in which article 11 enshrines the right to Freedom of Expression and information.
Count Dankula? Crap tasteless joke invoking a pug equals arrest, trail, conviction, massive fine and criminal record. Girl quotes dead friends favourite rap song as a tribute and gets convicted too?
No, we do not have free speech in this country.
This is the Tories you understand. They think that the way of dealing with a walnut is to get a lump hammer out and try and smash it into pieces and then wonder why everything else is broken. I have no issues with trying to stop hate rhetoric though I tend to agree that we are moving into thinking offensive is hate (which it is not).
Count Dankula? Crap tasteless joke invoking a pug equals arrest, trail, conviction, massive fine and criminal record. Girl quotes dead friends favourite rap song as a tribute and gets convicted too?
No, we do not have free speech in this country.
This is the Tories you understand. They think that the way of dealing with a walnut is to get a lump hammer out and try and smash it into pieces and then wonder why everything else is broken. I have no issues with trying to stop hate rhetoric though I tend to agree that we are moving into thinking offensive is hate (which it is not).
The Count Dankula case has nothing to do with the Tories. It was an apolitical prosecution brought by the CPS. It was a case heard at Airdrie Sheriff court involving an offence relating to the Communications Act 2003.
Speaking of Count Dankula...This idiot journalist repeats the phrase "Gas the Jews" several times. Remember folks, context doesn't matter, so this journalist is also a criminal.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Speaking of Count Dankula...This idiot journalist repeats the phrase "Gas the Jews" several times. Remember folks, context doesn't matter, so this journalist is also a criminal.
Very nice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Well sure, the beginnings of this plan probably begin years ago. The timing was just unfortunate.
I honestly don’t care though. It’s no different to how we deal with every other country on the planet.
That is true, we'll revert to the same restrictions as every other country, it's just a shame that the EU is the one collection of countries, right on our doorstep with whom we travel and trade with the most, including Eire. The total cost to the country when you tot it up will be quite high I imagine.
Fancy a £6 charge every time you cross the border? There's plenty who live along there who will be pissed off about that I'm sure.
100 Indian doctors coming to the NHS for a 3-year "Earn, Learn and Return" arrangement have had their visas denied because the non-existent (since yesterday) target for the month would be breached.
That's the problem with impossible quotas and stupid direction and understaffed departments; you force the staff to go after the easy targets which are usually the ones we want. But I bet no-one is willing to sink their career by pointing it the quotas are stupid.
The Whitehall department in charge of Brexit has failed to approach a single external company to obtain ideas of how technology will help solve the Northern Irish border issue. Brexit Secretary David Davis has repeatedly claimed that a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic can be avoided using new technology. Just last month, Mr Davis stated that “a whole load of new technology” exists to prevent the need for physical checks and controls at the border. Spider webs and magic But in response to a freedom of information request submitted by i, officials at the Department for Exiting the European Union admitted the number of companies it had spoken to about such technology was “nil”. It comes after a report from the Northern Irish Affairs committee last month stated the Government had provided “no evidence” that a technical solution to the border problem could be found. It will heap yet more pressure on Mr Davis, who was accused of trying to build an invisible border “out of nothing but spider-webs and magic”. The Government has committed to creating a “frictionless” border in Ireland after Brexit in a bid to avoid a return to checkpoints last seen during the Troubles. Failure to agree a suitable solution would see Britain revert to the so-called “backstop solution” of keeping Northern Ireland in the customs union and the single market, something vehemently opposed by the Democratic Unionist Party, which is propping up Theresa May’s government. Mr Davis made his first visit to Northern Ireland since he was appointed Brexit Secretary in July 2016 this week, where he claimed he would reach an agreement with the European Union by October that would keep the border “free from physical infrastructure”. But Labour MP and supporter of Open Britain, Chuka Umunna said: “Ministers keep trying to convince us that fantastical sci-fi technology will solve the problem of the Northern Ireland border, but now we learn they haven’t bothered to seek ideas about how this would actually work. “Unless David Davis possesses so far hidden levels of technical knowledge, such as how to build an invisible border out of nothing but spider-webs and magic, this is yet another example of the Government’s staggering lack of preparation for Brexit.” Evidence Tory MP Antoinette Sandbach added: “The Northern Ireland select committee report demonstrated there are no viable technical solutions anywhere in the world. Policy should be made on the basis of evidence.” Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs paid consultancy firm McKinsey & Company to help design the UK’s Brexit customs proposals only for it to be dismissed out of hand by Brussels. In its letter in response DExEU said: “From the Prime Minister’s Article 50 letter and the Northern Ireland and Ireland position paper published in the summer, to the Prime Minister’s speeches on our future relationship with the EU and the December Joint Report – our unwavering commitment has been to avoid any physical infrastructure, including related checks and controls, on the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.”
BBC South East has found that not a single @DExEUgov Minister has yet been to see operations at the Port of #Dover. That’s despite concerns over traffic and a steady stream of other politicians coming here for briefings.
You know, with this free speech issue and the business with the Evans boy, i can't imagine why people might turn to the EU for human rights, as it's clear Britain has none.
BaronIveagh wrote: You know, with this free speech issue and the business with the Evans boy, i can't imagine why people might turn to the EU for human rights, as it's clear Britain has none.
It's an aside, but that little boy is dead - his body just hasn't realised it yet. His brain is literally falling apart - apparently he only has 30% of the white matter in his brain left, the rest is just spinal fluid and water. There's no treatment that's going to bring that back. His parents are understandably clinging on to hope, but I can't see how there is any.
BaronIveagh wrote: You know, with this free speech issue and the business with the Evans boy, i can't imagine why people might turn to the EU for human rights, as it's clear Britain has none.
It's an aside, but that little boy is dead - his body just hasn't realised it yet. His brain is literally falling apart - apparently he only has 30% of the white matter in his brain left, the rest is just spinal fluid and water. There's no treatment that's going to bring that back. His parents are understandably clinging on to hope, but I can't see how there is any.
Exactly. No ethical hospital anywhere would advocate any other course of action than what is being done where he is.
The parents are not the patient and doctors must act in the best interests of the patient, not the parents of the patient. We wouldn't let a child die from blood loss because the parents didn't want them to have a blood transfusion and we should not keep a child technically alive with zero possibility of quality of life or treatment. It isn't even a case of keeping him alive in the hope that there might be treatment in the future. Short of growing him an entirely new brain and somehow being able to transplant that brain there will never be anything we can do for him.
The Evans case is a perfect example of real human rights, where the right of the child to die with dignity is held above the personal desires of the parents. Keeping Alfie alive can not bring him anything but suffering. Him being kept alive can also never bring his parents anything but suffering and a delay of them undergoing the grieving process. He is never going to get better, only worse. His parents need to come to terms to that but Alfie should not be kept suffering for however long it takes for them to do that.
100 Indian doctors coming to the NHS for a 3-year "Earn, Learn and Return" arrangement have had their visas denied because the non-existent (since yesterday) target for the month would be breached.
The problem is getting worse partly because it has become harder to recruit EU staff.
This is a great way to spread British influence and soft power, and get a good trade deal with India.
Well, we're in agreement about Indian doctors.
Regular posters will know that another hobby horse of mine is global Britain. I read somewhere that in the next 30 years, 90% of global growth will be outside the EU.
That's reason enough to say goodbye to Brussels.
So what does Britain do? I'll give you one word:
India.
Tons of growth, a rising Middle Class that speaks English, and the opportunity to plug gaps in the NHS by grabbing 10,000 Indian doctors, nurses, dentists etc etc
Trade deal and fixing the NHS? Killing two birds with one stone here.
You'd be hard pressed to find anybody, from Land's End to John O'Groats, who would argue against more doctors turning up in Britain.
And before anybody says that the EU being bigger can get a better trade deal, more clout etc etc
Well, to the naysayers I say that by the time any trade deal been Brussels and Delhi gets through the EU grind, and by the time every 3 man regional parliament from Belgium to Estonia has had their veto,
10-15 years will be down the drain. And that's bad for business.
India.
and I'm not just saying that because I sold some wargaming stuff to some people there the other week
We've already explained multiple times that the percentage of growth is meaningless when one number is much bigger than the other, but instead of having the humility of admitting that you're clueless on the subject you double down on posting the same trashy argument again. You're a sham. While I don't agree with them, at least the other pro-Brexit posters make arguments that last longer than two seconds under scrutiny.
The issue with India is that it's in the other side of the planet, has access to a wealth of other trading partners, while the same level of close cooperation and integral trade in physical goods and people (skilled professionals) would be dramatically less cost effective in the arenas that the EU currently offers. It will not work as a replacement for EU trade for the next couple of decades or more likely couple generations.
That said, diversifyung and expanding more trade to other areas isnt a bad thing, just dont look to India to be able to fill the coffers the way the EU can in the near future. Even if most global growth is outside the EU...those other areas have a lot of catching up to do, the EU's GDP is 8-10x that of India.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue with India is that it's in the other side of the planet, has access to a wealth of other trading partners, while the same level of close cooperation and integral trade in physical goods and people (skilled professionals) would be dramatically less cost effective in the arenas that the EU currently offers. It will not work as a replacement for EU trade for the next couple of decades or more likely couple generations.
That said, diversifyung and expanding more trade to other areas isnt a bad thing, just dont look to India to be able to fill the coffers the way the EU can in the near future. Even if most global growth is outside the EU...those other areas have a lot of catching up to do, the EU's GDP is 8-10x that of India.
I'm not accusing you of this, you're the innocent party here
but my critics on this forum, always seem to a) mistake Britain for Germany in that we don't make and export stuff on the German scale b) overlook the fact that there these things called boats and aeroplanes that allow us to travel to places like India, and shock horror, send goods on them as well. and c) they always seem to overlook the fact that Britain's strength these days is in services such as intelligence, finance etc. etc. which mostly gets done over this thing called the internet or something
I'm not attacking you, Vaktathi, because you're a fair and even person on these forums
but the other naysayers? They always overlook the fact that Europe is no longer the centre of the world anymore. It's Asia, South America, et al...
As a minor exporter of miniature wargaming supplies, where are my main markets these days?
Australia, New Zealand, India, Asia. That's where the money is.
Europe? Pah! barely gets a look in on my order book. There's one guy or girl in Germany who buys the odd old Magic card or 1980s Citadel villager from time to time, and that's as far as it goes.
I love Europe. Beautiful place, great history and culture. Gave us Kraftwerk and Democracy
But economic growth? Like the good capitalist I am, I'm following the money. And it's way past the Ural Mountains.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue with India is that it's in the other side of the planet, has access to a wealth of other trading partners, while the same level of close cooperation and integral trade in physical goods and people (skilled professionals) would be dramatically less cost effective in the arenas that the EU currently offers. It will not work as a replacement for EU trade for the next couple of decades or more likely couple generations.
That said, diversifyung and expanding more trade to other areas isnt a bad thing, just dont look to India to be able to fill the coffers the way the EU can in the near future. Even if most global growth is outside the EU...those other areas have a lot of catching up to do, the EU's GDP is 8-10x that of India.
I'm not accusing you of this, you're the innocent party here
but my critics on this forum, always seem to a) mistake Britain for Germany in that we don't make and export stuff on the German scale b) overlook the fact that there these things called boats and aeroplanes that allow us to travel to places like India, and shock horror, send goods on them as well. and c) they always seem to overlook the fact that Britain's strength these days is in services such as intelligence, finance etc. etc. which mostly gets done over this thing called the internet or something
I'm not attacking you, Vaktathi, because you're a fair and even person on these forums
but the other naysayers? They always overlook the fact that Europe is no longer the centre of the world anymore. It's Asia, South America, et al..
India accounts for roughly 2% of global trade (mostly to other countries in Asia). EU is 15% and is right at the UK doorstep. India is a mostly closed market for services of the kind the UK excels at, the EU is wide open.
Anyone putting India before the EU in the following 30, 50 or 100 years is delusional. Actually the notion that somehow doing business with one country blocks you from doing so with others is just childish. Trade is not a zero sum game.
Count Dankula? Crap tasteless joke invoking a pug equals arrest, trail, conviction, massive fine and criminal record. Girl quotes dead friends favourite rap song as a tribute and gets convicted too?
No, we do not have free speech in this country.
This is the Tories you understand. They think that the way of dealing with a walnut is to get a lump hammer out and try and smash it into pieces and then wonder why everything else is broken. I have no issues with trying to stop hate rhetoric though I tend to agree that we are moving into thinking offensive is hate (which it is not).
The Count Dankula case has nothing to do with the Tories. It was an apolitical prosecution brought by the CPS. It was a case heard at Airdrie Sheriff court involving an offence relating to the Communications Act 2003.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but, please make it an informed one.
Apologies I wasn't clear. I wasn't really intending to criticise the specific case. The person basically was reiterating hate language and deserved to be punished which is what I was trying to say but mangled the sentence. The saluting dog is offensive but on it's own I wouldn't claim is a hate crime (otherwise half of the Fawlty Towers cast would be included). On the other hand saying groups of people should be gassed is a hate crime.
In terms of the Tories I was referring more to their recent attempts to monitor / shut down / someway control social media, internet providers and so forth. The issue with it is that it forces people underground and makes them harder to detect and subsequently can grow without our knowledge or challenge. Despite the issues with Labour and anti-Semitism, regardless of the views on how it is being managed, it is out in the open and hence is easier to lance. The real difficulty comes when it is hidden from view because it makes it much more difficult to treat before the cancer has taken over substantial sections of the body (for example I could point the President's Club as an example). The Tories policy has always to try and mash it with lump hammer until it goes away, however the collateral damage is that we lose more and more freedoms in the process and doesn't really solve the problem because it just manifests in a different way.
Tons of growth, a rising Middle Class that speaks English, and the opportunity to plug gaps in the NHS by grabbing 10,000 Indian doctors, nurses, dentists etc etc
Trade deal and fixing the NHS? Killing two birds with one stone here.
Isn't that akin to slavery though. Exploiting a group of people that we want from another country and then kicking them out once no longer required? Just the use them and abuse them? And this is before that by doing this we are exploiting the really poor because then the people in that country have less doctors/nurses and so forth. So the poorest suffer at the expense of the wealthy (and in comparison poorest in this country is by far better off than the poorest in India).
Europe? Pah! barely gets a look in on my order book. There's one guy or girl in Germany who buys the odd old Magic card or 1980s Citadel villager from time to time, and that's as far as it goes.
There's two issues here. Are you saying that the trade you are doing is already limited by the good you sell abroad. Do they captured at customs when you export them as second hand goods? Do you have customers telling you that the relatively small amount of duty (if any at all) is preventing them from buying more goods from you. If any are no then you are missing the issue that if that growth does happen you are not going to be limited in any way by being in the EU because that trade already happens and will continue to happen.
Secondly as we've talked about before, selling second hand wargaming goods with minimal transport costs is completely different to bulk manufacturing large goods where haulage costs are much more substantial. The reason a lot of our business is to the EU is because it is next door and easy to get to. Start placing tariffs or restrictions on that trade then it becomes a review of ongoing revenue costs vs the capital costs of relocating. If a business gets to the point where relocating will pay back after 15-20 years or so they will be sorely tempted to move because the relatively minor impact on having customs charges to the UK will be massively offset by being in the EU and not having to pay those costs whether in tax, paperwork, or general lorry park delays. It won't happen overnight, but there is a significant risk of slow migration (and in some areas it is already happening).
Tons of growth, a rising Middle Class that speaks English, and the opportunity to plug gaps in the NHS by grabbing 10,000 Indian doctors, nurses, dentists etc etc
You do realise that the reason the EU doesnt have a free trade agreement with India is because the UK objected to the Indian immigration requirements?
So you're saying that outside the EU the UK is free to do exactly what it prevented the EU doing?
Plus, plenty of people will object to more brown people. Just read the daily mail's online comments.
Very sad, as the parents' hopes and dreams are dashed.
Not unexpected from a medical angle, however.
Not unexpected, inevitable.
The parents hopes and dreams would have been dashed as soon as he landed in Italy anyway. Better for it to happen here where they have friends and family to support them.
This whole thing reminds me of a similar case a while back where someone was denied the right to have a patient undergo an experimental treatment which hadn't even been tested on animals and the doctor pushing for it hadn't even seen the medical notes of the patient in question.
Very sad, as the parents' hopes and dreams are dashed.
Not unexpected from a medical angle, however.
Sad for the family but probably for the best given the circumstances. I appreciate their anguish even if I don’t believe they were really thinking about what was in the best interests of their child.
What I don’t appreciate are all the people who have no connection to the family or any expertise whatsoever, getting involved by protesting and intimidating staff at the hospital. All the idiotic things said about this case by people in he media without any real knowledge of medicine or procedure, no insight to the decision making process, but making he most ridiculous claims and getting so angry using words like ‘murder’. I just don’t understand why people with no stake in this become so invested in something that doesn’t concern them, beyond their own egotistical desire to feel important that they’re protesting something. It’s like people who protest family planning clinics. They don’t care about the health or wellbeing of staff and patients, they just want to feel important and cast judgment upon others.
Amber Rudd is looking ever more rudderless as she reels out ever more pathetic excuses.
We have gone from.
There were no deportation targets, to
There were local deportation targets but I didn't approve them and there were no national targets, to
There were national deportation targets but I didn't approve them or know about them, to
There were national deportation targets and I was personally sent the memo on them, but I didn't read the document.
In tomorrow's guardian
Amber Rudd uses the 'dog ate it' excuse after admitting she printed off the memo...
Now whether you believe her or not, it doesn't invoke much faith that she is taking due care and attention over her job and that if she doesn't read the memos the department are sending her then what else is she not looking at? Of course we know why she is playign this game. Simply that she is the only shield to Theresa May. So perhaps the bigger question is, did TM ever get memo's sent about targets? There also seems to be a significant leak in the Home Office.
The Windrush and immigration target problem also stems from May’s time at the Home Office. If Rudd has to go, you have to ask whether May is equally culpable and she doesn’t want to invite that questioning. If Rudd is supposedly good to remain in the post, then the whole thing can be down played and it won’t go further than that.
The usual defence in this kind of situation is to blame your predecessor in the role. For obvious reasons that is impossible for Rudd.
Rudd is currently operating as a human shield for May. That might save her, ironically.
There is plenty more "Windrush" type immigration crap emerging, such as several Canadian citizens who have been living in the UK since the 60s.
This will tie into the Voter ID plan too. The same kind of documents will be needed to vote as are currently needed to move house, open a bank account or start a new job.
I would be very interested to know how many deportees each year are "real illegals" rather than Windrush type people who basically are law abiding citizens whose status has become technically illegal because the law has been changed and changed again to make them illegal.
Very sad, as the parents' hopes and dreams are dashed.
Not unexpected from a medical angle, however.
Not unexpected, inevitable.
The parents hopes and dreams would have been dashed as soon as he landed in Italy anyway. Better for it to happen here where they have friends and family to support them.
This whole thing reminds me of a similar case a while back where someone was denied the right to have a patient undergo an experimental treatment which hadn't even been tested on animals and the doctor pushing for it hadn't even seen the medical notes of the patient in question.
Very sad, as the parents' hopes and dreams are dashed.
Not unexpected from a medical angle, however.
Not unexpected, inevitable.
The parents hopes and dreams would have been dashed as soon as he landed in Italy anyway. Better for it to happen here where they have friends and family to support them.
This whole thing reminds me of a similar case a while back where someone was denied the right to have a patient undergo an experimental treatment which hadn't even been tested on animals and the doctor pushing for it hadn't even seen the medical notes of the patient in question.
That was Alfie Evans.
It was Charlie Gard. Charlie Gard had mitochondrial depletion syndrome and was offered an unproven treatment that was claimed to make at best a small improvement to a very ill boy, by a doctor who had never examined him, when the doctors, who were world recognised experts in the field, said that it was not going to work and that moving him would not be in his best interest.
For Alfie Evans there was no hope of anything other than different approaches to how he would die. The way people kept talking about the hospital in Roam offering palliative care makes me wonder if they (the press and campaigners) understood what palliative care means.
Very sad, as the parents' hopes and dreams are dashed.
Not unexpected from a medical angle, however.
Not unexpected, inevitable.
The parents hopes and dreams would have been dashed as soon as he landed in Italy anyway. Better for it to happen here where they have friends and family to support them.
This whole thing reminds me of a similar case a while back where someone was denied the right to have a patient undergo an experimental treatment which hadn't even been tested on animals and the doctor pushing for it hadn't even seen the medical notes of the patient in question.
It was Charlie Gard. Charlie Gard had mitochondrial depletion syndrome and was offered an unproven treatment that was claimed to make at best a small improvement to a very ill boy, by a doctor who had never examined him, when the doctors, who were world recognised experts in the field, said that it was not going to work and that moving him would not be in his best interest.
For Alfie Evans there was no hope of anything other than different approaches to how he would die. The way people kept talking about the hospital in Roam offering palliative care makes me wonder if they (the press and campaigners) understood what palliative care means.
Thanks!
It wouldn't surprise me that many of the people commenting on this case don't understand what the actual details are and do so as a reflexive action to moronic headlines about "death panels" and "government going to inject child with same drugs used on death row".
Just look at the comments on the Fox news story about his death on facebook to see how many ignorant, stupid people there are saying that kids dying of degenerative neurological disorders thanks to death panels is what happens in single payer health systems and virulently attacking anyone who actually posts anything factual about his treatment.
As The Guardian pointed out, far from "death panels", the NHS has given Alfie Evans care that would have cost his parents millions of dollars under the US system.
Kilkrazy wrote: As The Guardian pointed out, far from "death panels", the NHS has given Alfie Evans care that would have cost his parents millions of dollars under the US system.
...and?
In the US, if the parent had the option to go somewhere else, no hospital or government entity in the US would've stopped them.
In the US the kid would likely already be dead because his parents are not rich. You can have your system, and we'll keep ours. Btw, the Evans could have paid for private care in the UK - they didn't have the money to do so. Private care is not illegal in the UK.
To be honest, I'm pretty done with defending public healthcare to Americans who think it's stalinism. They've got an agenda to push, and most have no experience of what a state run medical system is like. You're not going to change minds arguing with these people on the internet, because accepting they are wrong would be too painful for them.
Kilkrazy wrote: As The Guardian pointed out, far from "death panels", the NHS has given Alfie Evans care that would have cost his parents millions of dollars under the US system.
...and?
In the US, if the parent had the option to go somewhere else, no hospital or government entity in the US would've stopped them.
Great. I’d far rather have a system that puts the needs of the patient first. The point the Guardien are making is that many people who are against socialised Medicean in the US claim that there are “death panels” that decided when treatment is costing too much, where as in fact both of these children received care far beyond what most people in the US could pay for or what their insurance would cover. This is nothing to do with socialised medicine, but the fact that the courts and law in the UK considers the best interest of the patient, not the wishes of the parents.
Da Boss wrote: In the US the kid would likely already be dead because his parents are not rich. You can have your system, and we'll keep ours. Btw, the Evans could have paid for private care in the UK - they didn't have the money to do so. Private care is not illegal in the UK.
To be honest, I'm pretty done with defending public healthcare to Americans who think it's stalinism. They've got an agenda to push, and most have no experience of what a state run medical system is like. You're not going to change minds arguing with these people on the internet, because accepting they are wrong would be too painful for them.
That's because you keep misunderstanding the US healthcare system. It's not a "you only get care if you can afford it".
In most US healthcare system, most of the reimbursements comes from both Federal and State tax systems (Medicare/Medicaid/pethora of other programs). As such, its the government that is determining what's covered and whatnot... and it's the government that is dictating & maintaining oversight over this industry. Even on top of that, the US Healthcare systems do offer "free care" to show the local community and state of the value they offer to the region (this is a complex topic, so if interested PM me and I'll describe further).
Furthermore, the VA, the largest heatlhcare system in the US, is a full on public tax-payor paid, government ran system. (more of a NHS system than a Canadian system, but not quite 100%).
So, a state-run medical system is not an alien concept to the insurgent colonists across the pond.
The issue here though...and I'm not having a "go" or being "cheeky" here... I'm genuinely curious at the whole mindset in the UK with respect to UK government and it's people.
...side topic: I think there's a large disconnect over these comparison debates over the term "government". I *think* when UK folks use the term "government", they mean in a Westminster governance system a MP Party (tories, labour, ect...) forms a government through a majority/coaltion. Which is distinctly different to describing the UK court systems or other "state" operated entities. Right? I commonly see arguments that the UK judicial system is independent, and should not be considered as part of the government. (...in which this insurgent colonist would have a brain aneurysm)
However, in the US... we colloquially refer ANY state operated/empowered entity as the "Government". Anywhere from, the local school administrators to the TSA to Congress to Judiciary Branch and of course to the Executive Branch (POTUS). Furthermore, the Executive/Legislative/Judiciary are independent co-equal branches of government. Basically any state sanction entity is what we'd call the "government". Which is why I think these conversations get muddied up a bit when UK folks keep referring to the Judiciary system as independent from the UK government, as a way to defend the judiciary.
...end side topic.
So, back to Alfie Evans: So, in the US...we do not give parents the right to decide for their children BECAUSE they always make the correct choice. We give them that right because they care more about the child's welfare than the experts do. Obviously, that's not what happened here... and I'm curious as to how you feel about how this whole thing transpried.
I think we all can agree that killing someone's child is the worst thing you can do to a human being.
Therefore, the government (or shall I say, a state sanctioned entity) should not be the absolute authority above and beyond over parents who will have to live with the agony of watching their child killed in front of them by "disinterested experts".
Especially not if you want them to continue trusting the experts to make decisions about other parts of their lives.
Yes...some parents demonstrate that they don't care, and in that case, the experts and the courts can properly intervene. That isn't the case over Alife...which in that case, we should always err on the side of the parents and family, because none of us wants our fate decided by a disinterested expert.
We would want it decided by people who love us.
The experts are not perfect... often the experts don't always know what is best for the child. Even if everyone agrees on what it is meant by what is the "best" thing.
The Italian government and hospital system was offering to pay for additional treatment and palliative care. The organization in question is the Italian national health care system (heh) and the government of Italy was attempting to facilitate the transfer (heh).
By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent?
Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???
By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent? Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???
Alfie was under the care of the doctors in Liverpool. For them to agree to pass him over to the parents to transport to Italy when it was not the best course of action for Alfie is to be failing in their duty of care, just like allowing a child to die by not giving them a blood transfusion against the wishes of the parents would be. When the parents are attempting to carry out actions which are detrimental to the welfare of their patient and said patient is unable to consent, the doctors are ethically obliged to attempt to prevent them doing that.
Quite simply, Alfie's welfare and the best course of action for him is the primary concern of his doctors, not what the Pope wants or the parents want. Continuing to keep him alive would cause him nothing but pain and discomfort, for no purpose.
Also, Alfie was not killed by the hospital, he was killed by a neurological disorder turning his brain into mush.
Steve steveson wrote: The point the Guardien are making is that many people who are against socialised Medicean in the US claim that there are “death panels” that decided when treatment is costing too much, where as in fact both of these children received care far beyond what most people in the US could pay for or what their insurance would cover.
...I don't see any corroborating sources/facts/studies that supports this claim.
Thats spending about 2 minutes on google searching for entities in my neck of the neighborhood...
I don't know the breakdown of child vs. adult charity care, but last year hospital systems estimated over $100 billion in total uncompensated care (aka "Charity Care").
Our systems does have it's faults and challenges...and there's a lot to like about the NHS system. It's just that the assumption that the Guardian article pushed (that I underlined above) is an unfounded assumption.
My point wasn't that NHS provided suboptimal care (obviously not!). But, the decision to prevent Alfie's parents to transfer their child to a willinghospital was very disappointing.
It was simply that the boy was suffering, dying, sure to die. And that they determined that his right to not suffer until and eventual death was more important than the right of his parents to cling to false hope. The case is an example of respecting the right of a human to dignity, not trampling over anyone's rights.
You understand that his brain was mostly a soup of water and spinal fluid right? You don't come back from that. He was on a ventilator, he couldn't possibly continue to live on his own and in any case he was completely braindead, irretrievably so. I believe the Italian government was wrong to intervene, likely influenced by a hypocritical catholic morality.
Reviewing what I have on hand, this would never have flown in the US. And, frankly, those of you who think that Alfie would have died in US care due to the expense can *EDITED HEAVILY DUE TO LANGUAGE* my mother spent her entire career as a nurse taking care of children in a vegetative state who's parents were mostly funded by the US and state governments, so please *EDITED AGAIN DUE TO LANGUAGE, ANATOMICALLY IMPROBABLE SUGGESTIONS, AND USE OF HEAVY MACHINERY*
By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent?
Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???
Alfie was under the care of the doctors in Liverpool. For them to agree to pass him over to the parents to transport to Italy when it was not the best course of action for Alfie is to be failing in their duty of care. When the parents are attempting to carry out actions which are detrimental to the welfare of their patient, the doctors are ethically obliged to attempt to prevent them doing that.
Quite simply, Alfie's welfare and the best course of action for him is the primary concern of his doctors, not what the Pope wants or the parents want.
That doesn't square... what is it specifically in allowing Alfie to go to ANOTHER hospital be "failing in their duty of care". I don't see any good argument that constitutes tranferring Alfie to an Italian hospital detrimental to Alfie's welfare.
Also, Alfie was not killed by the hospital, he was killed by a neurological disorder turning his brain into mush.
If they truly believed that, then *why* does it matter to UK hospital/court for Alfie's parents to tranfer him to Italy for additional treatment & palliative care?
Reviewing what I have on hand, this would never have flown in the US.
That is due to the US system where doctors are extremely reluctant to go against the wishes of parents even when they feel that it would be ethical to do so.
Here, there is not that reluctance. The best course of action for the patient is the primary concern.
By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent? Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???
Alfie was under the care of the doctors in Liverpool. For them to agree to pass him over to the parents to transport to Italy when it was not the best course of action for Alfie is to be failing in their duty of care. When the parents are attempting to carry out actions which are detrimental to the welfare of their patient, the doctors are ethically obliged to attempt to prevent them doing that.
Quite simply, Alfie's welfare and the best course of action for him is the primary concern of his doctors, not what the Pope wants or the parents want.
That doesn't square... what is it specifically in allowing Alfie to go to ANOTHER hospital be "failing in their duty of care". I don't see any good argument that constitutes tranferring Alfie to an Italian hospital detrimental to Alfie's welfare.
Also, Alfie was not killed by the hospital, he was killed by a neurological disorder turning his brain into mush.
If they truly believed that, then *why* does it matter to UK hospital/court for Alfie's parents to tranfer him to Italy for additional treatment & palliative care?
Because transporting him to another hospital where he would be artificially kept alive for longer would be extending his suffering for no reason. Extending the suffering of a patient that is sure to die is detrimental to their welfare.
Reviewing what I have on hand, this would never have flown in the US. And, frankly, those of you who think that Alfie would have died in US care due to the expense can *EDITED HEAVILY DUE TO LANGUAGE* my mother spent her entire career as a nurse taking care of children in a vegetative state who's parents were mostly funded by the US and state governments, so please *EDITED AGAIN DUE TO LANGUAGE, ANATOMICALLY IMPROBABLE SUGGESTIONS, AND USE OF HEAVY MACHINERY*
Also, Alfie was not killed by the hospital, he was killed by a neurological disorder turning his brain into mush.
Yes and no. What they did is actually what killed him. It's no different than smothering a cancer patient. You take someone off life support, and you kill them. That is the law in the US, and, strangely, here as well.
By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent?
Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???
Alfie was under the care of the doctors in Liverpool. For them to agree to pass him over to the parents to transport to Italy when it was not the best course of action for Alfie is to be failing in their duty of care. When the parents are attempting to carry out actions which are detrimental to the welfare of their patient, the doctors are ethically obliged to attempt to prevent them doing that.
Quite simply, Alfie's welfare and the best course of action for him is the primary concern of his doctors, not what the Pope wants or the parents want.
That doesn't square... what is it specifically in allowing Alfie to go to ANOTHER hospital be "failing in their duty of care". I don't see any good argument that constitutes tranferring Alfie to an Italian hospital detrimental to Alfie's welfare.
Also, Alfie was not killed by the hospital, he was killed by a neurological disorder turning his brain into mush.
If they truly believed that, then *why* does it matter to UK hospital/court for Alfie's parents to tranfer him to Italy for additional treatment & palliative care?
Because Alfie was suffering. There was no hope. It was prolonging his suffering pointlessly.
Reviewing what I have on hand, this would never have flown in the US. And, frankly, those of you who think that Alfie would have died in US care due to the expense can *EDITED HEAVILY DUE TO LANGUAGE* my mother spent her entire career as a nurse taking care of children in a vegetative state who's parents were mostly funded by the US and state governments, so please *EDITED AGAIN DUE TO LANGUAGE, ANATOMICALLY IMPROBABLE SUGGESTIONS, AND USE OF HEAVY MACHINERY*
Fair enough, I unreservedly apologise for my misunderstanding of how care for people on life support is funded in the USA.
I still think that a child in a vegetative state is not the property of the parents. I do not believe that if someone is in Alfie's condition that keeping him "alive" on a ventilator out of misplaced hope is in his interest. I think it is macabre and twisted. I also feel. STRONGLY. That the publicity around this case is whipped up by those who want to attack state funded healthcare for political reasons, and I find that despicable. Prominent Republican politicians in the US have been tweeting about "Death Panels" and so on to score political points, and they are lower than pond scum in my estimation.
Because Alfie was suffering. There was no hope. It was prolonging his suffering pointlessly.
Oh? So, he's brain dead and suffering? One of these things is not true, as they are mutually exclusive.
Well, either he was suffering or he was dead. In either case, prolonging the entire thing is macabre and in my view, morally wrong. Parents do not own their children.
Reviewing what I have on hand, this would never have flown in the US.
That is due to the US system where doctors are extremely reluctant to go against the wishes of parents even when they feel that it would be ethical to do so.
Again with this misconception.
Yes, there is a phenomenon called "defensive medicine" whereby providers liberally applies various treatment plans so that the provider's backside is covered in case of being sued by stating "I did everything I could". But, different than how you are describing it...
Here, there is not that reluctance. The best course of action for the patient is the primary concern..
By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent?
Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???
Alfie was under the care of the doctors in Liverpool. For them to agree to pass him over to the parents to transport to Italy when it was not the best course of action for Alfie is to be failing in their duty of care. When the parents are attempting to carry out actions which are detrimental to the welfare of their patient, the doctors are ethically obliged to attempt to prevent them doing that.
Quite simply, Alfie's welfare and the best course of action for him is the primary concern of his doctors, not what the Pope wants or the parents want.
That doesn't square... what is it specifically in allowing Alfie to go to ANOTHER hospital be "failing in their duty of care". I don't see any good argument that constitutes tranferring Alfie to an Italian hospital detrimental to Alfie's welfare.
Also, Alfie was not killed by the hospital, he was killed by a neurological disorder turning his brain into mush.
If they truly believed that, then *why* does it matter to UK hospital/court for Alfie's parents to tranfer him to Italy for additional treatment & palliative care?
Because transporting him to another hospital where he would be artificially kept alive for longer would be extending his suffering for no reason. Extending the suffering of a patient that is sure to die is detrimental to their welfare.
Why? I mean, that's a mindset we'd have when cattle or horse is lamed up... put it out of it's misery.
Alfie was someone's child. Their voice matters too.
Well, either he was suffering or he was dead. In either case, prolonging the entire thing is macabre and in my view, morally wrong. Parents do not own their children.
We both know that legally and medically it's not that clear cut. Brain damage can inure one to pain that would leave someone screaming on the floor normally.
Here, there is not that reluctance. The best course of action for the patient is the primary concern..
If true... that's fething terrifying.
Why? Why is it terrifying that patients welfare is held above parents wishes? Would you be comfortable with parents being able to withhold antibiotics from their kid in hospital because they believe that antibiotics don't work?
Why? I mean, that's a mindset we'd have when cattle or horse is lamed up... put it out of it's misery.
Alfie was someone's child. Their voice matters too.
Their voice doesn't matter more than Alfie's. If they are not acting in his best interest, then they should not be given free reign to do what they want.
The right to die in dignity and to not have his suffering needlessly extended.
Well, one, we have no idea if he was actually suffering or not. It's hard to ask infants about that sort of thing, even if they're making noise and moving around.
'Death with Dignity'? You ever actually seen someone die? Not a lot of dignity to be found there.
Why? Why is it terrifying that patients welfare is held above parents wishes? Would you be comfortable with parents being able to withhold antibiotics from their kid in hospital because they believe that antibiotics don't work?
No, it's terrifying because of how often doctors get it wrong. After all, I've been declared dead three times. It should be apparent that I disagreed. and if that can be gotten wrong, you can imagine what else might get screwed up. I'd have liked to see more opinions on the matter than were allowed into the decision making process here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Alfie was not talking or moving around, and never would - his brain was a soup of spinal fluid for the most part.
Da Boss wrote: No, I'm sorry. To me, that absolutely is the point. It's central to why I would make this argument.
Then you're making the wrong argument as there are about three kids around the corner from me who have a similar condition but are up and around, though most do die.
watching their child killed in front of them by "disinterested experts".
Much better to have them shot by a murderous classmate and then send thoughts and prayers instead and then cash another cheque from the NRA.
Holy gak, there's all kinds of intersectionality here... are you trying to break the internets?
A) I hereby declare that you're trying to "Godwin'ed" a thread because you don't have good answers... but, we gotta give a different name... "thoughts and prayer'ed"... "NRA'ed"... need help ya'll! B) I find it disturbing that you mock "thoughts and prayers".... why would you object to a group of people who, at a minimum, are empathetic and wants some higher beings to send good vibes.
C) The NRA is the largest gun safety training organization who doesn't spend no where NEAR at the top of political scene.
..we colloquially refer ANY state operated/empowered entity as the "Government".
and then scream from the rooftops if someone uses the term "assault rfile"...
It's a meaningless term meant to be "scary" by control advocate.
Facts matters.
I think we all can agree that killing someone's child is the worst thing you can do to a human being.
nope.
O.o
, the experts and the courts can properly intervene. That isn't the case over Alife...
yes it is.
Specifically why do you believe it so? Or, do you simply trust the doctors and judge??
Da Boss wrote: No, I'm sorry. To me, that absolutely is the point. It's central to why I would make this argument.
Then you're making the wrong argument as there are about three kids around the corner from me who have a similar condition but are up and around, though most do die.
You have three kids around the corner whose brain deteriorated and have been on life support for two years?
whembly wrote: So, back to Alfie Evans: So, in the US...we do not give parents the right to decide for their children BECAUSE they always make the correct choice. We give them that right because they care more about the child's welfare than the experts do. Obviously, that's not what happened here... and I'm curious as to how you feel about how this whole thing transpried.
You don’t know what some parents are like then. They don’t care for their child’s welfare more than experts, nor are they capable of making the ‘correct’ choice based on evidence and reason. The religious nuts that would kill their kids by preventing them having blood transfusions and other routine operations demonstrates that you can’t blindly trust parents to have their children’s best interests at heart.
That’s not the case here, but let’s not pretend that being a parent gives you some unquestioned position of judgment on medical treatment of your child, often being so close makes it impossible to make a reasoned choice. That medical experts are capable of that because they have the expertise and the ability to be impartial doesn’t make them ‘disinterested’. I think a lot of those working in the NHS would be offended to be described as disinterested in their patients’ treatment and welfare.
Specifically why do you believe it so? Or, do you simply trust the doctors and judge??
This case has been seen by many doctors and many judges (initial case judge, higher court judge, supreme court judge, ECHR judges and appeals judges). All of them sided with Alfie's welfare over the parents wishes.
whembly wrote:I think a lot of those working in the NHS would be offended to be described as disinterested in their patients’ treatment and welfare.
All of those who I have had the pleasure to meet in a lifetime of NHS use would be. That's the renal teams at St George's, Guy's, St. Thomas' and the Evelina Children's hospital in London, Kent and Canterbury hospital in Canterbury, St. Richard's in Chichester, Southampton Hospital and Southmead Hospital in Bristol.
The Italian government and hospital system was offering to pay for additional treatment and palliative care. The organization in question is the Italian national health care system (heh) and the government of Italy was attempting to facilitate the transfer (heh).
By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent?
Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???
They weren't offering treatment though, just to continue with palliative care, there is no cure to the condition he had, the area of his brain that contributes to voluntary control was gone all that was left was the area at the base that controls the most basic functions of life and even that was only working properly with help, what was there to gain from keeping him alive apart, it certainly wasn't for his good which is the only thing that comes into it for doctors. The courts didn't decide to kill Alfie they decided to let him pass on knowing he had no hope of recovery.
I really feel sorry for the parents and can understand how they were unwilling to let go, but it's reasons like this when the courts should have a role because in many cases people don't think rationally about their children as they will always hold onto a small bit of hope. The way some people online have been acting however is disgusting, threatening medical staff, trying to break into the hospital and protesting outside, who's this meant to be helping? There were other kids in that hospital scared hearing the crowds outside why weren't they thinking of them too. A lot of what I have seen online appears to be people jumping on a bandwagon looking for attention, if they truly cared about the lives of others they'd be better donating some money each month to research into illness instead of going around making peoples jobs harder than they already are. And the idea that everyone in the NHS is involved with some cult like plans to kill people for scientific research would be hilarious if people weren't actually believing it.
You have three kids around the corner whose brain deteriorated and have been on life support for two years?
Longer on life support, though less brain deterioration (brain tumors) than Alfie. Two of the three have since been decannulated, but the third one still needs a vent when asleep. One of the ones up and about is permanently deaf though.
And if you think that England's system works, I point out that Ashya King's parents had to kidnap their own child from the Hospital when they threw up the same roadblocks Alfie's doctors did. In that case though the High Court ruled in favor of the family, and he was successfully treated in Poland, and is alive to this day,
It took NHS about two years to admit they'd been wrong in that case.
whembly wrote:I think a lot of those working in the NHS would be offended to be described as disinterested in their patients’ treatment and welfare.
All of those who I have had the pleasure to meet in a lifetime of NHS use would be. That's the renal teams at St George's, Guy's, St. Thomas' and the Evelina Children's hospital in London, Kent and Canterbury hospital in Canterbury, St. Richard's in Chichester, Southampton Hospital and Southmead Hospital in Bristol.
I didn't mean to convey they were disinterested in their patient's treatment and welfare... I meant it as experts in position of power reviewing the facts at hand dispassionately and without regards to parents' wishes.
Funny, didn't the High Court rule that these guys were NOT acting in the patient's best interests in 2014? Something about a Europe wide manhunt when the parents took their kid and fled because NHS didn't offer the treatment they wanted for their son, even though when they fled, that treatment saved his life?
The Italian government and hospital system was offering to pay for additional treatment and palliative care. The organization in question is the Italian national health care system (heh) and the government of Italy was attempting to facilitate the transfer (heh).
By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent? Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???
They weren't offering treatment though, just to continue with palliative care, there is no cure to the condition he had, the area of his brain that contributes to voluntary control was gone all that was left was the area at the base that controls the most basic functions of life and even that was only working properly with help, what was there to gain from keeping him alive apart, it certainly wasn't for his good which is the only thing that comes into it for doctors. The courts didn't decide to kill Alfie they decided to let him pass on knowing he had no hope of recovery.
Then why would the court care if he'd pass there or continued receiving palliative care in Italy delaying the inevitable? I mean, this wouldn't be such a hot issue if his parents COULDN'T find any other hospital to help.
I really feel sorry for the parents and can understand how they were unwilling to let go, but it's reasons like this when the courts should have a role because in many cases people don't think rationally about their children as they will always hold onto a small bit of hope. The way some people online have been acting however is disgusting, threatening medical staff, trying to break into the hospital and protesting outside, who's this meant to be helping? There were other kids in that hospital scared hearing the crowds outside why weren't they thinking of them too. A lot of what I have seen online appears to be people jumping on a bandwagon looking for attention, if they truly cared about the lives of others they'd be better donating some money each month to research into illness instead of going around making peoples jobs harder than they already are. And the idea that everyone in the NHS is involved with some cult like plans to kill people for scientific research would be hilarious if people weren't actually believing it.
You can see how this is an emotional issue...right?
The crux of it is thus: The UK experts/court refused a parent's request to move their son to another hospital for treatment, regardless how hopeless the situation appears. This is stuff of nightmares for parents...
You have three kids around the corner whose brain deteriorated and have been on life support for two years?
Longer on life support, though less brain deterioration (brain tumors) than Alfie. Two of the three have since been decannulated, but the third one still needs a vent when asleep. One of the ones up and about is permanently deaf though.
Then they have very little in common with the problems faced in this case:
i) They have obviously been able to diagnose their conditions, which was unable to be done in this case therefore there was no way to treat him to make him better.
ii) They're up and about so clearly still have a brain that is still functioning relatively well, Alfie didn't the scans should his brain had been essentially ''wiped out'' there is no recovery from that.
whembly wrote: P
B) I find it disturbing that you mock "thoughts and prayers"..
I find it disturbing that this is ever pushed as being of any use in a solution at all.
wants some higher beings to send good vibes.
A I don't believe in God/gods
B nor do I believe "good vibes" are of any use whatsoever in a situation like this.
Neither does any secularly based legal system
It's a meaningless term meant to be "scary" by control advocate.
Like death panels or socialist country or etc etc etc
I think we all can agree that killing someone's child is the worst thing you can do to a human being.
nope.
O.o
Indeed.
Top o' my head I would suggest torturing their child in front of them and then killing the child and other people , say a spouse or similar, would be worse.
Do you actually have an argument here or shall we throw out hands in the air some more here ?
Specifically why do you believe it so? Or, do you simply trust the doctors and judge??
In this circumstance yes I do trust them more.
I don't blame the parents -- one has nothing but sympathy for them -- which TBH will be about as much help as good vibes or whatever -- but they didn't understand or were unwilling to accept the reality of the case.
There were times the father/parents claimed he was getting better -- he wasn't.
14 The medical evidence given during the trial in February also addressed whether Alfie experiences pain. Hayden J summarised the evidence as follows:
"All agree that it is unsafe to discount the possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but .. it cannot be excluded."
The plans to take him to Italy have to be evaluated against this analysis of his needs. There are obvious challenges. Away from the intensive care provided by Alder Hey PICU, Alfie is inevitably more vulnerable, not least to infection. The maintenance of his anticonvulsant regime, which is, in itself, of limited effect, risks being compromised in travel. The journey, self-evidently will be burdensome. Nobody would wish Alfie to die in transit.
64. All of this might be worth risking if there were any prospect of treatment, there is none. For this reason the alternative advanced by the father is irreconcilable with Alfie's best interests. F continues to struggle to accept that it is palliation not treatment that is all that can now be offered to his son."
F-- there meaning the father
The Court of Appeal specifically refused the parents' application for permission to appeal under Ground 3 which argued that the judge had failed properly to weigh the alternative care plans including the proposed transfer to another hospital in Italy. In dealing with this Ground and the proposal that Alfie should be transferred to a hospital in Italy, the Court of Appeal agreed with the judge's conclusions:
"55(ii). In relation to the proposed air transport of Alfie to Italy, this was dealt with in written and oral evidence and in the judgment. The judge concluded [45] that the evidence of Dr Hubner could not safely be relied upon. The judge was entitled to take into account the views of Dr Samuels, Dr S and the Bambino Gesù experts all of whom shared the view that Alfie could suffer increased seizures in transit which have the potential to cause further brain damage, together with the evidence as to the possibility of Alfie experiencing pain and discomfort. The judge additionally set out the inherent risks to Alfie of travel outside the hospital.
iii) In relation to the tracheostomy and gastronomy which the parents sought, it was common ground that the provision of either or both could not in any way impact upon the fundamental fact that Alfie's condition is "catastrophic and untreatable" [19]. Dr S's evidence was that, if Alfie was able to feel pain, provision of either surgical procedure would cause further discomfort. The judge did not however close his mind to the parents' proposals taking the view that notwithstanding the risks had there been any prospect of treatment it may yet have been worth subjecting Alfie to the journey [64]."
Earlier in its judgment, the Court of Appeal had referred to the strength of the father's "wish that Alfie should be permitted to travel to the … hospital in Rome and, if necessary, (that) he thereafter be transferred to … the Munich hospital". So strong was his wish that, through counsel, he had told the court "that although he did not wish Alfie to die being transported to Italy, he would rather that happened than ventilation being withdrawn". In considering the father's position the Court of Appeal noted that: "The father understandably, and as was conceded by (his then counsel), really has no clear plan. Neither of the hospitals were "offering Alfie any hope for the future"
Notwithstanding the reports of both Dr Samuels and the Bambino Gesù team, further attempts at mediation between the Trust and the family in November 2017 did not result in agreement. In those circumstances, some 13 months after his referral to the hospital, on 5 December 2017 Alder Hey issued an application in the High Court. In her witness statement in support of the application Dr M noted that Bambino Gesù were not offering any additional investigations or new therapies and described the inherent risks in transferring ventilated patients. Dr R said:
"Should Alfie's condition significantly deteriorate during this transfer that there is risk of a sudden and "undignified" death outside the secure environment of a paediatric intensive care unit with his family present.
Transferring any terminally ill patient to another hospital either within the UK or abroad for continuation of treatment which we deem to be of no benefit to the patient is not something that we have ever considered as appropriate for patients on the paediatric intensive care at Alder Hey. As treating doctors we cannot in good conscience agree that by simply transferring Alfie to another hospital (to continue prolonged treatment which is of no benefit to Alfie) that we are acting first and foremost in Alfie's best interests. Sadly in Alfie's case, the futility of his situation is not changed by transferring him to the Bambino Gesù hospital. In my opinion the proposed transfer will be of no benefit to Alfie and is not in his best interests."
On 11 December 2017, a few days after the Trust had issued their application, a Dr Matthias Hubner, the medical director of an organisation in Germany called Paediatric Air Ambulance which provides paediatric intensive care transports for critically ill and injured children, went to the Alder Hey hospital posing as a friend of the family. He deliberately withheld his professional status from the doctors and staff, and examined Alfie without the knowledge and agreement of the hospital. He neither reviewed the medical notes nor discussed Alfie's case with the clinical team. Dr Hubner produced a so-called "fit to fly" certificate in December, but it was only during the course of the proceedings in February that a report materialised that he had previously written and sent directly to the father's then lawyers.
Dr Hubner's statement began with an assertion that he had seen all of Alfie's files, whereas in reality he had seen very little. As the judge put it, "most alarmingly" Dr Hubner's travel plan for Alfie suggested the use of anticonvulsant medication which, on the basis of Alder Hey's experience with Alfie, would have been both ineffective and inappropriate. It is clear from the statement, and very properly accepted by Mr Knafler during the course of argument, that much of that statement is predicated on a complete misunderstanding of the seriousness of Alfie's condition; by way of example only, Dr Hubner calculates a Glasgow Coma Scale which is clearly wrong and attributes responsiveness in Alfie and reflexes from him which had lain dormant for many months, and which inaccurate information must have been based upon information that can only have come from the parents, who have been unable to accept that what movements they see in Alfie are not positive responses by him to them. In cross-examination Dr Hubner told Mr Mylonas on behalf of the NHS Trust that he had not in fact used the air ambulance in cases where patients were dying.
The father believed, and continues to believe, that Alfie responds to him. Professor Haas helpfully dealt with this in his report, saying:
"The main underlying problem seems in my opinion that from the side of Alfie's parents that they do not understand and/or accept that:
a. the majority of Alfie's reaction to external stimuli (i.e. touching, pain stimulation like pinching, etc., reaction to noise, parents voice etc.) is very likely not a purposeful reaction but very likely caused by seizures (as proven by repeat EEG monitoring)
b. these reactions are very difficult to separate especially for parents. Based on videos shown to me, there may however well be a change in Alfie's behaviour and his status may well fluctuate
c. the seizure activity is very likely the consequence of the underlying process
d. the neurodegenerative process has unfortunately progressed so far that an improvement or recovery is also extremely unlikely."
Then they have very little in common with the problems faced in this case:
i) They have obviously been able to diagnose their conditions, which was unable to be done in this case therefore there was no way to treat him to make him better.
Conversely though you don't know if the condition is irreversible or not either.
I grant that it's unlikely, but I also feel that in this case it would have been better to allow the parents to take the boy elsewhere and seek alternate treatments, etc. Particularly when treatment etc was not going to be picked up by the British taxpayer.
The Italian government and hospital system was offering to pay for additional treatment and palliative care. The organization in question is the Italian national health care system (heh) and the government of Italy was attempting to facilitate the transfer (heh).
By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent?
Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???
They weren't offering treatment though, just to continue with palliative care, there is no cure to the condition he had, the area of his brain that contributes to voluntary control was gone all that was left was the area at the base that controls the most basic functions of life and even that was only working properly with help, what was there to gain from keeping him alive apart, it certainly wasn't for his good which is the only thing that comes into it for doctors. The courts didn't decide to kill Alfie they decided to let him pass on knowing he had no hope of recovery.
Then why would the court care if he'd pass there or continued receiving palliative care in Italy delaying the inevitable? I mean, this wouldn't be such a hot issue if his parents COULDN'T find any other hospital to help.
Because they weren't offering treatment, the journey to Italy probably would have killed him. We don't know if he was suffering or not, if he was keeping him alive would just continue to put him through that and if not he is not benefitting in anyway at all. There was no outcome that benefited him.
I really feel sorry for the parents and can understand how they were unwilling to let go, but it's reasons like this when the courts should have a role because in many cases people don't think rationally about their children as they will always hold onto a small bit of hope. The way some people online have been acting however is disgusting, threatening medical staff, trying to break into the hospital and protesting outside, who's this meant to be helping? There were other kids in that hospital scared hearing the crowds outside why weren't they thinking of them too. A lot of what I have seen online appears to be people jumping on a bandwagon looking for attention, if they truly cared about the lives of others they'd be better donating some money each month to research into illness instead of going around making peoples jobs harder than they already are. And the idea that everyone in the NHS is involved with some cult like plans to kill people for scientific research would be hilarious if people weren't actually believing it.
You can see how this is an emotional issue...right?
The crux of it is thus: The UK experts/court refused a parent's request to move their son to another hospital for treatment, regardless how hopeless the situation appears. This is stuff of nightmares for parents...
Of course it an emotional issue and my heart goes out to his parents completely no one should have to go through what they have, but their rights shouldn't trump Alfie's.
The situation did not appear hopeless it was hopeless. The courts refused it because while the parents have the right to want the best for their child, but what they think is best and what is actually best is not always the same thing.
Then they have very little in common with the problems faced in this case:
i) They have obviously been able to diagnose their conditions, which was unable to be done in this case therefore there was no way to treat him to make him better.
Conversely though you don't know if the condition is irreversible or not either.
I grant that it's unlikely, but I also feel that in this case it would have been better to allow the parents to take the boy elsewhere and seek alternate treatments, etc. Particularly when treatment etc was not going to be picked up by the British taxpayer.
His brain tissue was dead you can't reverse that, when cells in the brain die they literally turn to a liquid it's even got it's own name. The Italian hospital was not offering an alternate treatment they were simply saying that they'd keep the machine going.
His brain tissue was dead you can't reverse that, when cells in the brain die they literally turn to a liquid it's even got it's own name. The Italian hospital was not offering an alternate treatment they were simply saying that they'd keep the machine going.
Actually there are treatments that can reverse that, thought they're illegal in many nations due to the horror of stem cells
His brain tissue was dead you can't reverse that, when cells in the brain die they literally turn to a liquid it's even got it's own name. The Italian hospital was not offering an alternate treatment they were simply saying that they'd keep the machine going.
Actually there are treatments that can reverse that, thought they're illegal in many nations due to the horror of stem cells
Are they being used to currently treat patients? From my understanding we can use use pluripotent stem cells to form neurons in a pitri dish but we've been unable to actually to use it to repair damage in a human subject or even animals(?) and even at that there's the potential problem that we cannot generate true neurons as the iPSC have been somatic in nature and appear to retain an epigenetic memory so there's a risk of them retaining a preference for their previous cell type.
His brain tissue was dead you can't reverse that, when cells in the brain die they literally turn to a liquid it's even got it's own name. The Italian hospital was not offering an alternate treatment they were simply saying that they'd keep the machine going.
Actually there are treatments that can reverse that, thought they're illegal in many nations due to the horror of stem cells
No there aren't. There is no way to reveres the brain damage we are talking about. There is some promising research in to the possibility of stem cell therapy treating some types of minor brain injury. Not repairing the 70% of lost white matter.
No there aren't. There is no way to reveres the brain damage we are talking about. There is some promising research in to the possibility of stem cell therapy treating some types of minor brain injury. Not repairing the 70% of lost white matter.
Are they being used to currently treat patients? From my understanding we can use use pluripotent stem cells to form neurons in a pitri dish but we've been unable to actually to use it to repair damage in a human subject or even animals(?) and even at that there's the potential problem that we cannot generate true neurons as the iPSC have been somatic in nature and appear to retain an epigenetic memory so there's a risk of them retaining a preference for their previous cell type.
Surgeons in Zhengzhou started human testing using Embryonic stem cells to treat neural degeneration from diseases such as Parkinson's in May of 2017, injecting lab grown ES-cell-derived neuronal-precursor cells directly into the subjects brains. They also started testing for their use in macular degeneration cases.
They had to make it work in monkey's before China would allow them to proceed in human testing.
While no one has, as of yet, managed 70% of a brain, it's likely not far off.
Lund University in Sweden claims to have a similar process that will be ready for testing soon, as do the Australians, who are cooperating with the Chinese trials.
A United Ireland is definitely one way of sorting out the border issue and customs union problems. But I think we've still got a long way to go, no matter if Republicans start using Londonderry or not.
A United Ireland is definitely one way of sorting out the border issue and customs union problems. But I think we've still got a long way to go, no matter if Republicans start using Londonderry or not.
Now there's a problem that makes regenerating 70% of a brain look easy.
BaronIveagh wrote:Surgeons in Zhengzhou started human testing using Embryonic stem cells to treat neural degeneration from diseases such as Parkinson's in May of 2017, injecting lab grown ES-cell-derived neuronal-precursor cells directly into the subjects brains. They also started testing for their use in macular degeneration cases.
They had to make it work in monkey's before China would allow them to proceed in human testing.
While no one has, as of yet, managed 70% of a brain, it's likely not far off.
Lund University in Sweden claims to have a similar process that will be ready for testing soon, as do the Australians, who are cooperating with the Chinese trials.
You do realise that they haven't even published any data and other scientists have expressed doubts about the safety of the trial? Even if they do manage to replace the cells lost during Parkinson that is a very long way from recreating the majority of the brain.
You're talking about keeping a child in a vegetative state possibly in pain in the hopes that there MAY be a move forward in a treatment for a disease he doesn't even have.
You do realise that they haven't even published any data and other scientists have expressed doubts about the safety of the trial? Even if they do manage to replace the cells lost during Parkinson that is a very long way from recreating the majority of the brain.
You're talking about keeping a child in a vegetative state possibly in pain in the hopes that there MAY be a move forward in a treatment for a disease he doesn't even have.
I grant they have not published yet (it's still ongoing, so....) and even if they did, it would never be legal in the US or England, so that the conservatives in both places can shout how moral they are, and that God wants the sick to suffer as they offend him somehow. (which is why I generally discard scientists in the US decrying how dangerous it is, as some of them also decry all forms of stem cell research as the work of Satan and murder for profit.
Again, as you pointed out earlier, we don't know what disease he actually has, and while I grant that you're correct in that a treatment specific to his rather more significant damage is likely a long way off, the nature of the damage is similar enough that the Parkenson's treatment if administered when his condition first manifested, it might have at least slowed, or even stopped the degeneration. Further, that the judge made his decision based on something that's only partially true.
I don't think this discussion will ever have an end, as Americans and Canadians tend to be more optimistic than people in England, and thus both have very different outlooks on what constitutes good medicine.
It very much is the point. There's no doubt about what his future recovery would look like; there's nothing to recover.
He got over pneumonia that no-one was expecting, but he can't grow back his brain, and even if the technology existed in the future he'd essentially spent his entire life in a hospital bed so would have real issues with growth, bone strength, muscle wastage and so on.
If he could feel anything, he'd have suffered. He has zero chance of improving.
Well, this case has been up and down through the UK and ECHR courts twice.
It has been thoroughly examined from legal and medical points of view in the light of current knowledge. The conclusions were always the same.
No doubt there will be similar cases in the future, and we will see what happens as medical science advances and perhaps finds a way to cure such illnesses.
While no one has, as of yet, managed 70% of a brain, it's likely not far off. .
That isn't how the brain works. Restoring small parts damaged by Alzheimers is leaps and bounds below restoring almost an entire brain.
And once you inject the cells, you have no idea whether they will be attacked again by the disease.
So all you could end up doing is regrowing and having the brain deteriorate over and over again for someones entire life as they have to continually undergo invasive procedures. They would have no quality of life. Not to mention that each time you're trying to restore it it may not perfectly recreate the previous connections so you could end up with a person with a completely different personality and memories from before the procedures as their brain is no longer wired in the same way.
Funny, didn't the High Court rule that these guys were NOT acting in the patient's best interests in 2014? Something about a Europe wide manhunt when the parents took their kid and fled because NHS didn't offer the treatment they wanted for their son, even though when they fled, that treatment saved his life?
No they didn't.
The parents wanted to take their kid to the Czech Republic to undergo proton therapy as they mistakenly believed it was less dangerous than conventional radiotherapy. When it was denied (the NHS didn't pay for proton therapy at the time as it was too expensive for the same risks and benefit of conventional radiotherapy for this particular form of cancer. It did pay for it for other forms of cancer where there was a benefit in the form of less dosage to the areas around the target) the parents took their child and fled to Spain.
There they were arrested and their child, who in this time had not been receiving any treatment for their cancer, was sent to a local hospital to receive therapy. The case then went to court which ruled they could go and get proton therapy in the Czech Republic.
The court did not rule that the hospital was wrong about the lack of benefit of proton therapy over radiotherapy, just that the kid could go and get the proton therapy.
The actions of the parents delayed their child receiving treatment when acting within a strict time window is incredibly important to prevent the cancer returning and they did so based on incorrect information.
Home ownership was the lynch pin in Thatchers strategy to secure a generation of Conservative voters. The theory being that if people have a stake in the country, and are tied in to the capitalist ideology through home ownership, then they will be life long Tory supporters. It worked, neo-liberalism and home ownership forced Labour to transform itself and the country has been voting centrist blue ever since.
So, now that the baby boomers are dying off and with them a life of compartivive wealth from secure employment, weighty pensions and cheap home ownership and with generation X Scooping up the last of the remnants of that bounty, what are millennials left with?
What does that mean for the continued domination of Tory ideology? An entire generation without a stake in the future and with none of the advantages of the previous generations, and without the Tories able to buy them off, are we looking at a generational shift in political ideals?
You do realise that they haven't even published any data and other scientists have expressed doubts about the safety of the trial? Even if they do manage to replace the cells lost during Parkinson that is a very long way from recreating the majority of the brain.
You're talking about keeping a child in a vegetative state possibly in pain in the hopes that there MAY be a move forward in a treatment for a disease he doesn't even have.
I grant they have not published yet (it's still ongoing, so....) and even if they did, it would never be legal in the US or England, so that the conservatives in both places can shout how moral they are, and that God wants the sick to suffer as they offend him somehow. (which is why I generally discard scientists in the US decrying how dangerous it is, as some of them also decry all forms of stem cell research as the work of Satan and murder for profit.
Again, as you pointed out earlier, we don't know what disease he actually has, and while I grant that you're correct in that a treatment specific to his rather more significant damage is likely a long way off, the nature of the damage is similar enough that the Parkenson's treatment if administered when his condition first manifested, it might have at least slowed, or even stopped the degeneration. Further, that the judge made his decision based on something that's only partially true.
I don't think this discussion will ever have an end, as Americans and Canadians tend to be more optimistic than people in England, and thus both have very different outlooks on what constitutes good medicine.
This treatment doesn't even exist yet though, so how are we even meant to have administered it to him over a year ago?
Even if this treatment had existed which is again is a big if, as the research that the current trial is being based off hasn't even been seen by anyone outside of those working on it, it probably wouldn't have done anything to help in this case, Parkinsons affects a specific area of the brain Alfie had lost 70% of his there's quite a difference. And as ATCM said even if we did we don't know what caused his degeneration was it autoimmune or a genetic problem with his neural cells, because we could just get to the stage where he's constantly needing renewal or we're just waiting for certain areas of his brain to die off before replacing them. So keeping him alive for all these if and what could have been is just cruel to him, no matter how hard it is on the parents.
Guys, if you want to discuss the development of new treatments for brain diseases, there is a good bit of topic in the thread about not heeding warnings from SF.
There are contributions about animating pig brains, and the creation of human brain organoids, which are directly relevant to the discussion.
Well, allow me to offer my congratulations to Remain supporters on this forum. Your side has managed to keep us in the EU by hook or by crook.
The Sunday papers are full of the government ready to offer a deal similar to freedom of movement, and a deal similar to the customs union. I suspect they will be repackaged as Union of Customs or Movement Freedom. Add that to the transition period, and we have left the EU in name only...
So, despite not winning a referendum, and despite running one of the most inept political campaigns in history since Carter Vs Reagan, you did it. You guys did it.
The greatest vote in British political history for ANYTHING, and I mean anything, turned over by unelected peers, a Remain Civil Service, a Remain PM, a Remain chancellor, Remain MPs, and various court room battles, ex-EU has beens like Clegg and Kinnock etc etc
A great triumph of people power there.
Sarcasm aside, what does this mean going forward? Disaster. Utter disaster for the democratic process in this nation...
A black day for democracy...
Voter turnouts for GEs have been in steady decline since the 1990s. Disillusionment of the political class is at an all time high. Nobody bothers to vote anymore for red, blue or yellow Blairism, and the one time when people's vote actually means a damn, it's snatched away from them. So the people who voted in the referendum, some of whom were voting for the first time in years, have effectively been disenfranchised.
Does anybody seriously think that this will encourage greater political participation? No, it will shatter it. Remain have won a short-term pyrrhic victory, and the long term decline will continue.
And if you think Farage is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet...
People will turn to extremists. It's inevitable...
Brexit could have been the catalyst for great change in this nation, a bold vision could have propelled us on to face many of the big challenges that are coming in the 21st century.
Instead, we are offered nothing but managed decline by incompetent bank managers tinkering at the edges, locked forever in the embrace of a fading Europe that will soon be over taken by hungrier and more dynamic economies in Asia.
That's the future ladies and gentlemen...
I will bet every last miniature I own that in 10 years time, we'll still be on about a housing crisis that's never been fixed, a broken NHS, a massive immigration problem, a breakdown in law and order, and a constipated economy, all the while comparing our measly 1.1% growth to the 8% growth in Germany who will still be keeping the Euro low so they can flog a few BMWs to India or something...
Young people on here were threatening to leave Britain because of Brexit, to them I say, I'd leave anyway. It's nothing but a grim future here. I'm reminded of my youth and the bleakness of the 1980s...
As long as some spivs in London are making cash, and as long as some NIMBYs in the home counties are sitting on their homes they bought in the 1980s with help to buy, and counting the rising property prices, nothing will change in Britain. It's no place to be a young person...
The elites, with Remain as their useful idiots, have won...
I grant they have not published yet (it's still ongoing, so....) and even if they did, it would never be legal in the US or England, so that the conservatives in both places can shout how moral they are, and that God wants the sick to suffer as they offend him somehow. (which is why I generally discard scientists in the US decrying how dangerous it is, as some of them also decry all forms of stem cell research as the work of Satan and murder for profit
That's not how it works in the UK. There is a body called the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that reviews evidence that comes from certain treatments and determines whether they are appropriate to be used by doctors in the UK. If a stem cell treatment is shown to be safe, effective from full clinical trials then they tend to accepted and allowed to be used. However it is a more cautionary approach to ensure that we are not paying for something that doesn't actually work and came from one flawed trial. On the other hand if you are willing to pay then you can ask for any crack pot treatment available just not through the NHS. Some treatments do not get approved because the benefits do not outweigh the 'costs'. This might be an anti-cancer treatment that works only in 1% of cases and generally only extends a life span by a month or so. In this case it would not be approved for general use (though if the scientists prove a much better rate in certain cases it may be approved for that specific use). However the decisions are all evidence based not because they are determined to be the work of 'Satan'.
I'd also point out that many of your arguments don't really stack up when you consider the population at large. An adult can have a heart attack at 60 and be starved of oxygen for 10 minutes (about the time it takes for the higher brain functions to die). It is however possible to keep the body alive after this point as we have medical equipment that can just about do most of our functions for us (fed through blood supply, cleaning blood, pumping blood etc). The question then based on your arguments is why we don't keep everyone alive indefinitely in 'hope' that one day we can cure the brain death (really only immediate incineration/freezing/blowing up really means this isn't practical), grow a new heart (or whatever failed) etc? The reality is no country's government has the resources to do this. But it is feasible.
The Sunday papers are full of the government ready to offer a deal similar to freedom of movement, and a deal similar to the customs union. I suspect they will be repackaged as Union of Customs or Movement Freedom. Add that to the transition period, and we have left the EU in name only...
I would agree that we may as well stay in with this, but then I wouldn't be complaining.
So, despite not winning a referendum, and despite running one of the most inept political campaigns in history since Carter Vs Reagan, you did it. You guys did it.
The greatest vote in British political history for ANYTHING, and I mean anything, turned over by unelected peers, a Remain Civil Service, a Remain PM, a Remain chancellor, Remain MPs, and various court room battles, ex-EU has beens like Clegg and Kinnock etc etc
I think the reality is starting to sink in that we are too closely tied to the EU and we can't just pull up the drawbridge without significant damage to the UK. However I remain sceptical until I see what is actually said. May reiterated last week we wouldn't stay in the customs union and she will know that a significant proportion of her voter base just can't stand the idea of immigration. So she does run the real risk that this element of the population circle back to UKIP. That would leave them losing the next GE and perhaps for a fair while beyond. With a bit of luck that would result in the finally the end of the FPTP system and then Tories would never have the same advantageous jerry-mandered seats as they do now.
Given however the population that support Wrexit is shrinking it should not be a surprise that things soften over time (until we rejoin).
On the other hand if you are opposed to having a customs union and free movement then maybe you should support a second referendum?
My opposition to the EU needs no explanation on these pages, but yeah, whirlwind, I'm with you 100% on this
If we're going to stay in the EU anyway, we may as well go the distance. At least then we'd get a few billion quid from Brussels for a badger sanctuary in Oxford or something, or money to build a museum of historic Bulgarian tractors in High Wycombe or whatever.
and at least we'd get a laugh with some UKIP brawl in the EU parliament. Something. Anything.
Better that than this mockery, this sham, this betrayal of a Brexit.
A serious question for my fellow dakka members, be they Remain or Leave: if you're an average Northerner or whatever, and you never voted for decades, but you voted in 2016 when you knew your vote meant something, and you voted to leave and to stick two fingers up to Cameron; and now Brexit is going down the pan...
Does anybody seriously think that the Northerner, and millions like him will rush to the polling stations next election to be there at 7am on the Thursday?
To vote for a political class of all colours that is carrying on regardless, a political class that thinks the same on immigration, NHS, bombing Arabs, the economy etc etc
To vote for 30 more years of what we've had the last 30 years?
Hell no
Irreversible damage has been done to this country for short-term gain by a political class that offers nothing but managed decline and political constipation...
Corbyn the great hope?
His brand of socialism never worked in the 1970s, got ran out of town in the 1980s, was abandoned in the 1990s by Blair and Smith, and in 2018 can't even dent one of the most incompetent governments in British political history, led by one of the worst PMs we've ever had...
Good luck to anybody backing the Corbyn horse. I should know, I was there in the 1980s the last time that horse got sent to the knackers yard.
Brexit was the jolt that could have galvanised this nation for the better.
Instead we have managed decline and political constipation. You mark my words.
I suppose any society gets the government it deserves...
I don't see the point in voting now anyway. I live in a safe Labour seat (Sedgefield), so its not like I have a voice. The referendum was the only time when my Vote truly made a difference, and if we're cheated with a deal that means we stay in the EU in all but name, then I'll just revert back to voting UKIP or I won't bother at all.
On the other hand if you are opposed to having a customs union and free movement then maybe you should support a second referendum?
Oh give over. Calls for a 2nd Referendum were only ever a blatant attempt to overturn the result of the 1st Referendum. If we had a 2nd Referendum and got the same result, you would immediately start calling for a 3rd one.
There was never any realistic chance of us leaving the EU, the goal posts keep getting moved.
The elites, with Remain as their useful idiots, have won...
Again!
Only one side of this debate has consistently and wilfully attacked or ignored any evidence contrary to their preconception of how Brexit would go and it wasn't remain.
All of the issues which have come up were clearly pointed out by a myriad of different groups before the referendum and then hand-waved away or outright ignored by those pushing for brexit. For example, the IOP and its equivalent bodies pointed to brexit posing a threat to the UK's science sector and, lo and behold, it has made the UK science sector less attractive as there is no guarantee of funding post-brexit. We can't even be sure of being able to continue to acquire nuclear materials, not only for research and power generation but also radioactive sources for use in medicine, due to the governments decision to leave EURATOM, for goodness sake.
Better that than this mockery, this sham, this betrayal of a Brexit.
A serious question for my fellow dakka members, be they Remain or Leave: if you're an average Northerner or whatever, and you never voted for decades, but you voted in 2016 when you knew your vote meant something, and you voted to leave and to stick two fingers up to Cameron; and now Brexit is going down the pan...
Brexit never had any real ideals to betray. It was literally the political equivalent of the underpants gnomes from South Park.
As for people voting to stick two fingers up at the establishment. Maybe they should learn that you should vote based on the actual issue at hand rather than your dislike of the person who is on TV.
Brexit was the jolt that could have galvanised this nation for the better.
This is not restricted by being in the EU or outside of it. The idea that our political bodies would suddenly have an epiphany after leaving the EU was highly unlikely given that those leading the leave campaign are looking to their own best interests rather than the countries. Germany is doing just fine in the EU. In the end if your voting choices are red turd or a blue turd as your political choices you still get a brown turd once the paint wears off.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't see the point in voting now anyway. I live in a safe Labour seat (Sedgefield), so its not like I have a voice. The referendum was the only time when my Vote truly made a difference, and if we're cheated with a deal that means we stay in the EU in all but name, then I'll just revert back to voting UKIP or I won't bother at all.
Even if you live in a "safe" seat its worth taking the time to vote IMO. It gives your MP and there party an indicator of the local populations attitudes and there engagement. Even if your preferred candidate doesn't win the result can still influence whoever does.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't see the point in voting now anyway. I live in a safe Labour seat (Sedgefield), so its not like I have a voice. The referendum was the only time when my Vote truly made a difference, and if we're cheated with a deal that means we stay in the EU in all but name, then I'll just revert back to voting UKIP or I won't bother at all.
All the more reason to support PR as a voting method. I feel your pain, as I live in a solidly blue area. It is not reasonable that any vote should be worthless.
Oh give over. Calls for a 2nd Referendum were only ever a blatant attempt to overturn the result of the 1st Referendum. If we had a 2nd Referendum and got the same result, you would immediately start calling for a 3rd one.
Well if you refer back to my previous thoughts on this I've always stated that by placing EU membership within the remit of direct democracy then yes we should continue to have votes on the issue, because that is what democracy is. The ability for the public to continue to have its say on the issue. I would suggest that should only stop when the results are consistently and signficantly (e.g. 70:30) one way or another.
Whirlwind wrote: All the more reason to support PR as a voting method. I feel your pain, as I live in a solidly blue area. It is not reasonable that any vote should be worthless.
I might have done, but what we were offered by the Tory-Lib Dem coalition was not PR. So I voted against it.
Whirlwind wrote: All the more reason to support PR as a voting method. I feel your pain, as I live in a solidly blue area. It is not reasonable that any vote should be worthless.
I might have done, but what we were offered by the Tory-Lib Dem coalition was not PR. So I voted against it.
Even AV would be better than what we have. It wouldn't have benefited the Tories at the time however, so they shot it in the head, metaphorically speaking. Once UKIP started to leech their votes away, they might've changed their tune.
The elites, with Remain as their useful idiots, have won...
Again!
Only one side of this debate has consistently and wilfully attacked or ignored any evidence contrary to their preconception of how Brexit would go and it wasn't remain.
All of the issues which have come up were clearly pointed out by a myriad of different groups before the referendum and then hand-waved away or outright ignored by those pushing for brexit. For example, the IOP and its equivalent bodies pointed to brexit posing a threat to the UK's science sector and, lo and behold, it has made the UK science sector less attractive as there is no guarantee of funding post-brexit. We can't even be sure of being able to continue to acquire nuclear materials, not only for research and power generation but also radioactive sources for use in medicine, due to the governments decision to leave EURATOM, for goodness sake.
Only one side of this debate has consistently and wilfully attacked or ignored any evidence contrary to their preconception of how Brexit would go and it wasn't remain.
Juncker: I want expansion into the Balkans and an EU defence force. Remain reaction: he doesn't really meant it, he has no influence, he's actually the janitor of the local school.
Macron: I want an EU defence force and Balkans expansion. Remain reaction: Sure, it will have soldiers and that, but it's not really a military their tanks and guns will be made from chocolate. And Macron is not the President of France.
Guy Verhofstadt writes in The Guardian: I want an EU defence force. Remain reaction: he used to play for the Netherlands in the 1970s. He has no influence, he doesn't mean it.
It's George Orwell from Remainers. Defence force = non military military, and expansion is really the EU contracting and rolling back its borders...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't see the point in voting now anyway. I live in a safe Labour seat (Sedgefield), so its not like I have a voice. The referendum was the only time when my Vote truly made a difference, and if we're cheated with a deal that means we stay in the EU in all but name, then I'll just revert back to voting UKIP or I won't bother at all.
On the other hand if you are opposed to having a customs union and free movement then maybe you should support a second referendum?
Oh give over. Calls for a 2nd Referendum were only ever a blatant attempt to overturn the result of the 1st Referendum. If we had a 2nd Referendum and got the same result, you would immediately start calling for a 3rd one.
There was never any realistic chance of us leaving the EU, the goal posts keep getting moved.
I don't blame you for not voting. In fact, I would encourage you not to vote and tell everybody else not to vote. Disenfranchise the whole rotten system.
People may call it nihilistic, but for me it's the rational thing to do and the logical conclusion in reacting to a political class that is morally and ideologically bankrupt.
Brexit was the jolt that could have galvanised this nation for the better.
This is not restricted by being in the EU or outside of it. The idea that our political bodies would suddenly have an epiphany after leaving the EU was highly unlikely given that those leading the leave campaign are looking to their own best interests rather than the countries. Germany is doing just fine in the EU. In the end if your voting choices are red turd or a blue turd as your political choices you still get a brown turd once the paint wears off.
Of course Germany is doing fine in the EU. A major manufacturing and exporting nation with an artificially weak currency? The Germans would have to take incompetence to a new level not to gain from that.
And if Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland et al should suffer, well, at least huge swathes of their young can depopulate their own nations and head north to the promised land.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't see the point in voting now anyway. I live in a safe Labour seat (Sedgefield), so its not like I have a voice. The referendum was the only time when my Vote truly made a difference, and if we're cheated with a deal that means we stay in the EU in all but name, then I'll just revert back to voting UKIP or I won't bother at all.
Even if you live in a "safe" seat its worth taking the time to vote IMO. It gives your MP and there party an indicator of the local populations attitudes and there engagement. Even if your preferred candidate doesn't win the result can still influence whoever does.
Having watched a debate in the commons the other day, it only confirmed what I already knew: our MPs are spivs, lobby fodder, dolts, careerists and SPADs who are out of their depth.
They are drones that have the personality and initiative sucked out of them, if they ever had any to beging with.
It really does. We know you're against it but there's so much vitriol and lack of critical though in your leave the eu at all costs stance, it's impossible to tell why you actually dislike it.
I do find it almost hilarious that you regard a 51.9% majority on a non binding referendum as being the point where democracy and common sense stop, because it's the point where you get what you want.
It's George Orwell from Remainers. Defence force = non military military, and expansion is really the EU contracting and rolling back its borders...
And this compares to the far more blatant lies that Leave spewed and continues to? A golden land of milk and honey once we throw off the shackles of EU? We can just magic the money out of thin air and everyone will beat a path to our door with favorable trade deals in hand?
Having watched a debate in the commons the other day, it only confirmed what I already knew: our MPs are spivs, lobby fodder, dolts, careerists and SPADs who are out of their depth.
They are drones that have the personality and initiative sucked out of them, if they ever had any to beging with.
Welcome to Democracy. I'm sure you'll want to high tail it back to your beloved tyrants and slavery?
It really does. We know you're against it but there's so much vitriol and lack of critical though in your leave the eu at all costs stance, it's impossible to tell why you actually dislike it.
I do find it almost hilarious that you regard a 51.9% majority on a non binding referendum as being the point where democracy and common sense stop, because it's the point where you get what you want.
I find it hilarious that I was naïve enough to think that we actually live in a democracy. Still, this Thursday, when we get 10% turnouts for the local elections, it will be funny to see the political commentators scratching their heads and wondering why nobody bothers to vote anymore.
I don't blame you for not voting. In fact, I would encourage you not to vote and tell everybody else not to vote. Disenfranchise the whole rotten system.
People may call it nihilistic, but for me it's the rational thing to do and the logical conclusion in reacting to a political class that is morally and ideologically bankrupt.
That's about the stupidist thing I've heard. The only outcome of this is that the fanatics/extremists etc will be given the keys to the kingdom. Such people will always vote for their twisted idealogy, they won't stop voting because they don't like people in parliament. And if such leaders get into power they won't give a damn about changing the political system to their own means (much more so than we have already).
I don't blame you for not voting. In fact, I would encourage you not to vote and tell everybody else not to vote. Disenfranchise the whole rotten system.
People may call it nihilistic, but for me it's the rational thing to do and the logical conclusion in reacting to a political class that is morally and ideologically bankrupt.
That's about the stupidist thing I've heard. The only outcome of this is that the fanatics/extremists etc will be given the keys to the kingdom. Such people will always vote for their twisted idealogy, they won't stop voting because they don't like people in parliament. And if such leaders get into power they won't give a damn about changing the political system to their own means (much more so than we have already).
Let the fanatics have the keys to the castle. They're welcome to it, and good luck to them. It is the logical conclusion to the decline of the Western World and our current system.
The three stages in the cycle of Democracy:
1. An informed populace who are vigilant and eager to particpate and defend their democracy having overthrown the previous corrupt system in a revolution. Voter turnout is high, the rulers mostly act fearlessly in the public good. The early years of the American Republic are a good example of this...
2. A complacent populace with a system that becomes steadily more and more corrupt. The system still functions to an extent, but gradually erodes over the years as participation drops, the leaders stop governing to the good of the nation, and entropy gradually sets in. Europe 2018 as an example.
3. A corrupt and tyrant government, that pays lip service to democratic values and the rule of law. Populace pushed to far, and revolution usually ensues.
Repeat ad infinitum...
The price of freedom has always been eternal vigilance. We all know that...
No, April 10th 1932 was a black day for Democracy.
..I know a fair few of his later films were a bit rubbish but that's a bit harsh on Omar Sharif.
On the plus side, at least we'll be spared your charts and graphs on the subject of Japanese car companies pulling out, or Britain's GDP going up in smoke.
Now that we're still locked into the EU, none of that will come to pass.
Though I do respect the time and effort you put into digging that stuff out, even though I usually didn't agree with it.
It really does. We know you're against it but there's so much vitriol and lack of critical though in your leave the eu at all costs stance, it's impossible to tell why you actually dislike it.
I do find it almost hilarious that you regard a 51.9% majority on a non binding referendum as being the point where democracy and common sense stop, because it's the point where you get what you want.
I find it hilarious that I was naïve enough to think that we actually live in a democracy. Still, this Thursday, when we get 10% turnouts for the local elections, it will be funny to see the political commentators scratching their heads and wondering why nobody bothers to vote anymore.
We live in a representative democracy. Nothing undemocratic has happened.
Harsh words have been exchanged on this topic in the last few years, and many people have fallen out with each other over Brexit or some other issue of British politics,
but dakka is still the best place for political debate.
and I respect the vast majority of people on here.
Despite Brexit going down the pan, I don't regret my vote, and I'd keep voting for Brexit until the end of time.
And Brexit going down the pan is not the fault of Remain voters on dakka - it's way beyond their powers and influence.
And at the end of the day, we're all here because of our love for miniature wargaming.
But I am disillusioned with the whole damn system, even though i should really know better.
Hell, only ten minutes ago, I was alerted to the fact that the Tories have received over a million pounds in donations from Russians, but Corbyn is somehow the Moscow stooge...
And then in my local newspaper, a Labour MSP is trying to save a Scottish school from crippling PFI payments, and is attacking the SNP for not helping, even though it was her party that introduced them to Scotland in the first place.
and I could probably cite another 1 million examples of that kind of thing...
That is the level of political discourse in the UK as things stand, and if the whole damn system goes down the pan, it'll probably be richly deserved.
I'd advise everybody to stick to wargaming, making cash, reading books and generally ignoring the madhouse of politics.
Customs Union is the only outcome that can work with the NI border as it stands.
If the UK government goes for it, the Brexiteers might challenge May for leadership of the Tories. But I honestly think they're too chicken - they don't want to have to deal with all this gak.
If it's not a Customs Union capitulation, we're getting into dangerous territory with only 4 months to go and nothing concrete on the table for the future relationship. The UK government has made a shocking mess of the Brexit negotiations, it's really shaken me to see how far a country I once thought was serious and pragmatic has fallen.
It really does. We know you're against it but there's so much vitriol and lack of critical though in your leave the eu at all costs stance, it's impossible to tell why you actually dislike it.
I do find it almost hilarious that you regard a 51.9% majority on a non binding referendum as being the point where democracy and common sense stop, because it's the point where you get what you want.
I believe it was Nigel Farage who said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."
Da Boss wrote: Customs Union is the only outcome that can work with the NI border as it stands.
If the UK government goes for it, the Brexiteers might challenge May for leadership of the Tories. But I honestly think they're too chicken - they don't want to have to deal with all this gak.
If it's not a Customs Union capitulation, we're getting into dangerous territory with only 4 months to go and nothing concrete on the table for the future relationship. The UK government has made a shocking mess of the Brexit negotiations, it's really shaken me to see how far a country I once thought was serious and pragmatic has fallen.
I think the negotiations could have been brought off reasonably well if May had not announced her "red lines" and sent her resignation letter right at the beginning.
This started a ticking clock which demands a resolution within two years of problems which can't be resolved within two years.
It really does. We know you're against it but there's so much vitriol and lack of critical though in your leave the eu at all costs stance, it's impossible to tell why you actually dislike it.
I do find it almost hilarious that you regard a 51.9% majority on a non binding referendum as being the point where democracy and common sense stop, because it's the point where you get what you want.
I believe it was Nigel Farage who said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."
He was pretty quiet about it after the fact, though.
Let the fanatics have the keys to the castle. They're welcome to it, and good luck to them. It is the logical conclusion to the decline of the Western World and our current system.
The three stages in the cycle of Democracy:
1. An informed populace who are vigilant and eager to particpate and defend their democracy having overthrown the previous corrupt system in a revolution. Voter turnout is high, the rulers mostly act fearlessly in the public good. The early years of the American Republic are a good example of this...
2. A complacent populace with a system that becomes steadily more and more corrupt. The system still functions to an extent, but gradually erodes over the years as participation drops, the leaders stop governing to the good of the nation, and entropy gradually sets in. Europe 2018 as an example.
3. A corrupt and tyrant government, that pays lip service to democratic values and the rule of law. Populace pushed to far, and revolution usually ensues.
That makes the assumption that past predicts the future. Previous revolutions people had muskets and bayonets so the balance of power between civilian and military was a lot less. The technology scales are widely different now, the assumption that a corrupt, tyrant government wouldn't just gas its own populace if it thought it might lose control is what happens - and we have a modern example.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You know, I’m wondering exactly which of the Brexit promises DINLT actually believes were deliverable?
I had this naïve belief that an island that had made its own decisions for 1000 years, would be able to er, make it's own decisions again upon leaving the EU.
But, so incompetent are our politicians, and so intertwined are we with the EU, that we're unable to wipe our own backsides without the EU showing us how...
And please God, nobody mention the British Empire, because that's not what I'm on about here.
I just wanted Britain to be a normal, functioning non-EU nation like Japan, or New Zealand or Australia.
And again, I know that Japan makes cars and Australia sells minerals and Britain doesn't. Again, that's besides the point.
I'm happy to trade with the EU as one sovereign nation dealing with the EU bloc.
Let the fanatics have the keys to the castle. They're welcome to it, and good luck to them. It is the logical conclusion to the decline of the Western World and our current system.
The three stages in the cycle of Democracy:
1. An informed populace who are vigilant and eager to particpate and defend their democracy having overthrown the previous corrupt system in a revolution. Voter turnout is high, the rulers mostly act fearlessly in the public good. The early years of the American Republic are a good example of this...
2. A complacent populace with a system that becomes steadily more and more corrupt. The system still functions to an extent, but gradually erodes over the years as participation drops, the leaders stop governing to the good of the nation, and entropy gradually sets in. Europe 2018 as an example.
3. A corrupt and tyrant government, that pays lip service to democratic values and the rule of law. Populace pushed to far, and revolution usually ensues.
That makes the assumption that past predicts the future. Previous revolutions people had muskets and bayonets so the balance of power between civilian and military was a lot less. The technology scales are widely different now, the assumption that a corrupt, tyrant government wouldn't just gas its own populace if it thought it might lose control is what happens - and we have a modern example.
You're forgetting velvet revolutions and Solidarity in Poland. Often, violence is not needed. If enough people peacefully refuse to engage with a state i.e fall of Communism, then the whole thing can collapse.
Da Boss wrote: Customs Union is the only outcome that can work with the NI border as it stands.
If the UK government goes for it, the Brexiteers might challenge May for leadership of the Tories. But I honestly think they're too chicken - they don't want to have to deal with all this gak.
If it's not a Customs Union capitulation, we're getting into dangerous territory with only 4 months to go and nothing concrete on the table for the future relationship. The UK government has made a shocking mess of the Brexit negotiations, it's really shaken me to see how far a country I once thought was serious and pragmatic has fallen.
I think the negotiations could have been brought off reasonably well if May had not announced her "red lines" and sent her resignation letter right at the beginning.
This started a ticking clock which demands a resolution within two years of problems which can't be resolved within two years.
They were never going to succeed with die-hard Remainers at the wheel. The red lines are a smokescreen. The woman at the top's heart was never in it from day 1. They were always doomed to fail.
It really does. We know you're against it but there's so much vitriol and lack of critical though in your leave the eu at all costs stance, it's impossible to tell why you actually dislike it.
I do find it almost hilarious that you regard a 51.9% majority on a non binding referendum as being the point where democracy and common sense stop, because it's the point where you get what you want.
I believe it was Nigel Farage who said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."
But leave won though, so it's irrelevant.
Remain got two bites at the cherry: the referendum and then the Lib Dem's GE pitch that said vote for us and we're back in the EU.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You know, I’m wondering exactly which of the Brexit promises DINLT actually believes were deliverable?
I had this naïve belief that an island that had made its own decisions for 1000 years, would be able to er, make it's own decisions again upon leaving the EU.
Nearer 2000 years since the Romans left. But we can make our own decisions.
But, so incompetent are our politicians, and so intertwined are we with the EU, that we're unable to wipe our own backsides without the EU showing us how...
We did warn you about that. The reason we're so intwined is because being intwined benefits us hugely.
I just wanted Britain to be a normal, functioning non-EU nation like Japan, or New Zealand or Australia.
And again, I know that Japan makes cars and Australia sells minerals and Britain doesn't. Again, that's besides the point.
I'm happy to trade with the EU as one sovereign nation dealing with the EU bloc.
But that's exactly the point; we're a service economy, not a manufacturing economy. The same trade deals as everyone else will destroy us. We also benefit hugely from being in the EU due to the seamless nature of interaction and the resource sharing.
But leave won though, so it's irrelevant.
It's very relevant. The Leave campaign regarded 48/52 as close enough to keep fighting until it won, when it became a clear mandate for the people.
Remain got two bites at the cherry: the referendum and then the Lib Dem's GE pitch that said vote for us and we're back in the EU.
Remain lost on both occasions.
Lib Dem would never have won after the betrayal of their voters in the coalition. Instead you should consider this: May called the GE to get a clear mandate to move forward, lost her parties majority and relies on a far right unionist party to support them in exchange for the fruit of the magic money tree.
If anything the referendum was inconclusive and the GE an indication that the voters aren't behind Mays Brexit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If we're going to complain about anti-Semitism in the Labour party, can we acknowledge the Tories are more blatant about it:
You'll have to comer up with a better example than that.
Theres nothing remotely antisemitic about the joke "sweating like a Jew in an attic".
Tasteless, certainly. Its very inappropriate for a candidate running for political office to make a joke about the holocaust. But anti-Semitic? How?? Its not an expression of hatred against Jews, its not an insinuation of racial inferiority, its just a humorous if tasteless analogy.
The elites, with Remain as their useful idiots, have won...
Again!
Only one side of this debate has consistently and wilfully attacked or ignored any evidence contrary to their preconception of how Brexit would go and it wasn't remain.
All of the issues which have come up were clearly pointed out by a myriad of different groups before the referendum and then hand-waved away or outright ignored by those pushing for brexit. For example, the IOP and its equivalent bodies pointed to brexit posing a threat to the UK's science sector and, lo and behold, it has made the UK science sector less attractive as there is no guarantee of funding post-brexit. We can't even be sure of being able to continue to acquire nuclear materials, not only for research and power generation but also radioactive sources for use in medicine, due to the governments decision to leave EURATOM, for goodness sake.
Only one side of this debate has consistently and wilfully attacked or ignored any evidence contrary to their preconception of how Brexit would go and it wasn't remain.
Juncker: I want expansion into the Balkans and an EU defence force. Remain reaction: he doesn't really meant it, he has no influence, he's actually the janitor of the local school.
Macron: I want an EU defence force and Balkans expansion. Remain reaction: Sure, it will have soldiers and that, but it's not really a military their tanks and guns will be made from chocolate. And Macron is not the President of France.
Guy Verhofstadt writes in The Guardian: I want an EU defence force. Remain reaction: he used to play for the Netherlands in the 1970s. He has no influence, he doesn't mean it.
It's George Orwell from Remainers. Defence force = non military military, and expansion is really the EU contracting and rolling back its borders...
Stop it with the fake news... Verhofstadt is Belgian.
I like how they still use terms like ‘misled’ when she said there weren’t targets, but wrote a letter describing setting targets. That’s just a bare faced lie surely?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...They were never going to succeed with die-hard Remainers at the wheel. The red lines are a smokescreen. The woman at the top's heart was never in it from day 1. They were always doomed to fail. ...
Hang on, who's in charge of Brexit negotiations? I believe there is a minister in charge of Brexit? David something. I'm lead to believe that he was quite positive about the whole Brexit thing. Seemed quite chipper, and assured everyone it would be a piece of piss. I also believe the foreign secretary was quite prominent in the Leave campaign, and possibly a couple of other cabinet ministers too.
But obviously Theresa May is entirely at fault for not delivering a lovely big dollop of ERG sponsored, JRM approved, full fat insanity flavoured, tell the Frogs and krauts to go whistle type of Brexit favoured by the moderates at the Express and Mail.
I'm fairly sure we mentioned something about this pre-referendum too. Should it all go to a pile of ratshit, there would be those on the leave side who will be falling over themselves to blame remainers, like they do for every fething thing. Saboteurs, Traitors, blah blah blah fething blah.
You'll be saying they'll be riots in the streets next.
Spoiler, there won't be riots in the streets over this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I like how they still use terms like ‘misled’ when she said there weren’t targets, but wrote a letter describing setting targets. That’s just a bare faced lie surely?
It depends, if she said it in Parliament then it's merely words which have no legal impact or basis in reality. If she said it anywhere else, then it's a bare faced lie. It's actually hard to tell now, reality seems to be quite flexible when it comes to the perception of truth and lies.
It's all about perspective.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I had this naïve belief that an island that had made its own decisions for 1000 years, would be able to er, make it's own decisions again upon leaving the EU.
But, so incompetent are our politicians, and so intertwined are we with the EU, that we're unable to wipe our own backsides without the EU showing us how...
And please God, nobody mention the British Empire, because that's not what I'm on about here.
I just wanted Britain to be a normal, functioning non-EU nation like Japan, or New Zealand or Australia.
And again, I know that Japan makes cars and Australia sells minerals and Britain doesn't. Again, that's besides the point.
I'm happy to trade with the EU as one sovereign nation dealing with the EU bloc.
Here it is: British Empire, and you can't ignore it. This island made its own decisions for a long time and was able to do it because it benefited hugely from having that Empire. Ignoring that and still expecting to somehow get great results while isolating oneself from the nearest neighbours just doesn't add up. All the countries you mentioned have their own circumstances that make certain parts workable and other parts bad in their own way. You constantly throw around phrases that are the equivalent of "Make Britain Great Again" and point out the positive sides of those other countries. It may work in your posts because you conveniently just ignore huge chunks of negative side effects on all sides. The reality is that the UK, as it lost its empire has modelled itself more on the US side of the economic spectrum with a slightly bigger reliance on services sector jobs (from banking to everything else).
That means there are certain dependencies that make being part of the EU a good thing and slingshotting out of the EU a really painful thing. You may have some excessively optimistic views of what the UK could do when independent but those ideas don't fully line up with the reality as it is. You may be willing to ignore all the negative side-effects but it still doesn't change the situation.
It's as if a doctor told you the good news that they don't need to amputate your finger but they'll have to take off the whole arm. Your point of view seems to just orbit around the first half of that diagnosis (and you seem very optimistic about it) while stubbornly (or wilfully?) ignoring anything after the but. I have lost count of how often people have rephrased or reframed issues they had with your arguments. At some point it's just tiring
I had this naïve belief that an island that had made its own decisions for 1000 years, would be able to er, make it's own decisions again upon leaving the EU.
Funny, i seem to recall that you spent MOST of that thousand years under the rule of nobles from other places, including Europe. Or did William of Orange never happen?
Lib Dem would never have won after the betrayal of their voters in the coalition. Instead you should consider this: May called the GE to get a clear mandate to move forward, lost her parties majority and relies on a far right unionist party to support them in exchange for the fruit of the magic money tree.
If anything the referendum was inconclusive and the GE an indication that the voters aren't behind Mays Brexit.
Exactly. It's pretty dishonest to paint the last GE as a single-issue vote and not take into account that the person who was putting his vision of Brexit to the vote lost his majority.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You know, I’m wondering exactly which of the Brexit promises DINLT actually believes were deliverable?
I'm willing to be corrected, but it sounded as if he's not expecting any promises to be kept, and is happy with any outcome as long as we're "free of the shackles of the EU". He's essentially already admitted twice that he knows it's a disaster but wouldn't change his mind about wanting it.
From a pro-Brexit viewpoint, Rudd's departure is good news in that a prominent Remain supporter has been cast adrift. She was pushing hard for this alternative customs union bollocks.
Good riddance to her. And her handling of Windrush was a disgrace.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You know, I’m wondering exactly which of the Brexit promises DINLT actually believes were deliverable?
I'm willing to be correct, but it sounded as if he's not expecting any promises to be kept, and is happy with any outcome as long as we're "free of the shackles of the EU". He's essentially already admitted twice that he knows it's a disaster but wouldn't change his vote.
I admit to nothing. Brexit can, should, and will be a success. We're operating with one hand tied behind our backs because of Tory incompetence.
Lib Dem would never have won after the betrayal of their voters in the coalition. Instead you should consider this: May called the GE to get a clear mandate to move forward, lost her parties majority and relies on a far right unionist party to support them in exchange for the fruit of the magic money tree.
If anything the referendum was inconclusive and the GE an indication that the voters aren't behind Mays Brexit.
Exactly. It's pretty dishonest to paint the last GE as a single-issue vote and not take into account that the person who was putting his vision of Brexit to the vote lost his majority.
It's not dishonest.
We've had single issue votes in UK political history. Sein Finn in 1918 being a prime example.
The Lib Dems did nothing but bang on about the EU at the last election. I should know because I watched their manifesto launch. That's the sacrifices I make.
It can be summed up as thus: Brexit. EU. Brexit. EU. Brexit. EU.
I'm not going to be lectured by people who probably didn't even watch or read a fraction of Lib Dem campaign material.
I know what I read and witnessed, and people who didn't even follow it are trying to convince me otherwise?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I had this naïve belief that an island that had made its own decisions for 1000 years, would be able to er, make it's own decisions again upon leaving the EU.
But, so incompetent are our politicians, and so intertwined are we with the EU, that we're unable to wipe our own backsides without the EU showing us how...
And please God, nobody mention the British Empire, because that's not what I'm on about here.
I just wanted Britain to be a normal, functioning non-EU nation like Japan, or New Zealand or Australia.
And again, I know that Japan makes cars and Australia sells minerals and Britain doesn't. Again, that's besides the point.
I'm happy to trade with the EU as one sovereign nation dealing with the EU bloc.
Here it is: British Empire, and you can't ignore it. This island made its own decisions for a long time and was able to do it because it benefited hugely from having that Empire. Ignoring that and still expecting to somehow get great results while isolating oneself from the nearest neighbours just doesn't add up. All the countries you mentioned have their own circumstances that make certain parts workable and other parts bad in their own way. You constantly throw around phrases that are the equivalent of "Make Britain Great Again" and point out the positive sides of those other countries. It may work in your posts because you conveniently just ignore huge chunks of negative side effects on all sides. The reality is that the UK, as it lost its empire has modelled itself more on the US side of the economic spectrum with a slightly bigger reliance on services sector jobs (from banking to everything else).
That means there are certain dependencies that make being part of the EU a good thing and slingshotting out of the EU a really painful thing. You may have some excessively optimistic views of what the UK could do when independent but those ideas don't fully line up with the reality as it is. You may be willing to ignore all the negative side-effects but it still doesn't change the situation.
It's as if a doctor told you the good news that they don't need to amputate your finger but they'll have to take off the whole arm. Your point of view seems to just orbit around the first half of that diagnosis (and you seem very optimistic about it) while stubbornly (or wilfully?) ignoring anything after the but. I have lost count of how often people have rephrased or reframed issues they had with your arguments. At some point it's just tiring
There was no British Empire in the 1000s, 1100s, 1200s, 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, 1600s. Britain didn't exist until 1707.
You may have some excessively optimistic views of what the UK could do when independent but those ideas don't fully line up with the reality as it is. You may be willing to ignore all the negative side-effects but it still doesn't change the situation.
If it wasn't for people like me willing to take a risk, we'd still be living in caves and banging rocks together, whilst discussing the latest migration paths of mammoths.
Human history is full of people taking risks. That's why were talking about sending people to Mars, rather than trembling in our caves.
I admit to nothing. Brexit can, should, and will be a success. We're operating with one hand tied behind our backs because of Tory incompetence.
So the politicians we have trying to do the thing are incompetent but you refuse to admit that the resulting thing is a disaster. At this point you're really coming across as someone standing on the bow of the Titanic yelling that eveything is fine and it'll be great over the screams of people jumping into the Atlantic.
It's not dishonest.
We've had single issue votes in UK political history. Sein Finn in 1918 being a prime example.
The Lib Dems did nothing but bang on about the EU at the last election. I should know because I watched their manifesto launch. That's the sacrifices I make.
It can be summed up as thus: Brexit. EU. Brexit. EU. Brexit. EU.
I'm not going to be lectured by people who probably didn't even watch or read a fraction of Lib Dem campaign material.
I know what I read and witnessed, and people who didn't even follow it are trying to convince me otherwise?
Pah.
Whether or not the Lib Dems ran on a single issue changes nothing. One party running on one issue doesn't make a general election in which multiple parties were running a single issue vote. If that were the case there should never have been a referendum as ukip never won a GE and so obviously the public didn't want to leave the EU.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...They were never going to succeed with die-hard Remainers at the wheel. The red lines are a smokescreen. The woman at the top's heart was never in it from day 1. They were always doomed to fail. ...
Hang on, who's in charge of Brexit negotiations? I believe there is a minister in charge of Brexit? David something. I'm lead to believe that he was quite positive about the whole Brexit thing. Seemed quite chipper, and assured everyone it would be a piece of piss. I also believe the foreign secretary was quite prominent in the Leave campaign, and possibly a couple of other cabinet ministers too.
But obviously Theresa May is entirely at fault for not delivering a lovely big dollop of ERG sponsored, JRM approved, full fat insanity flavoured, tell the Frogs and krauts to go whistle type of Brexit favoured by the moderates at the Express and Mail.
I'm fairly sure we mentioned something about this pre-referendum too. Should it all go to a pile of ratshit, there would be those on the leave side who will be falling over themselves to blame remainers, like they do for every fething thing. Saboteurs, Traitors, blah blah blah fething blah.
You'll be saying they'll be riots in the streets next.
Spoiler, there won't be riots in the streets over this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I like how they still use terms like ‘misled’ when she said there weren’t targets, but wrote a letter describing setting targets. That’s just a bare faced lie surely?
It depends, if she said it in Parliament then it's merely words which have no legal impact or basis in reality. If she said it anywhere else, then it's a bare faced lie. It's actually hard to tell now, reality seems to be quite flexible when it comes to the perception of truth and lies.
It's all about perspective.
Davis has been side-lined by Olly Robbins, top civil servant, and arch Remainer, and all done with the blessing of the Prime Minister.
It's hard to be a minister for Brexit when your fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
If it wasn't for people like me willing to take a risk, we'd still be living in caves and banging rocks together, whilst discussing the latest migration paths of mammoths.
Human history is full of people taking risks. That's why were talking about sending people to Mars, rather than trembling in our caves.
Just stop. Great visionaries care about details, something you have admitted time and again you know nothing about.
The people who pushed for leaving the caves would have recognised the seasons, giving them the most time to get established before the next winter. They would have charted out the best location to move to, how long it would take to get set up, what supplies were needed to get there etc.
You have never even given the slightest bit of thought as to the details, only sweeping generalised statements that are absolutely meaningless.
The people discussing sending people to Mars as a serious effort are not like you. They will sit for years going over every detail before taking the first step because that is the kind of planning and forethought required to make great things happen.
I admit to nothing. Brexit can, should, and will be a success. We're operating with one hand tied behind our backs because of Tory incompetence.
So the politicians we have trying to do the thing are incompetent but you refuse to admit that the resulting thing is a disaster. At this point you're really coming across as someone standing on the bow of the Titanic yelling that eveything is fine and it'll be great over the screams of people jumping into the Atlantic.
It's not dishonest.
We've had single issue votes in UK political history. Sein Finn in 1918 being a prime example.
The Lib Dems did nothing but bang on about the EU at the last election. I should know because I watched their manifesto launch. That's the sacrifices I make.
It can be summed up as thus: Brexit. EU. Brexit. EU. Brexit. EU.
I'm not going to be lectured by people who probably didn't even watch or read a fraction of Lib Dem campaign material.
I know what I read and witnessed, and people who didn't even follow it are trying to convince me otherwise?
Pah.
Whether or not the Lib Dems ran on a single issue changes nothing. One party running on one issue doesn't make a general election in which multiple parties were running a single issue vote. If that were the case there should never have been a referendum as ukip never won a GE and so obviously the public didn't want to leave the EU.
Well, if we're using the Titanic analogy, then Remainers are refusing to board a perfectly good lifeboat because they don't like the colour.
There is no, and will never be, a Brexit that will ever satisfy Remain voters, because obviously they don't want to leave.
Even if May had a 200 seat majority, the DUP sidelined, and Barnier on his knees promising that the EU would pay Britain 100 billion a year for 100 years
it wouldn't be enough. And frankly, I won't waste time trying to convince Remainers otherwise.
Davis has been side-lined by Olly Robbins, top civil servant, and arch Remainer, and all done with the blessing of the Prime Minister.
It's hard to be a minister for Brexit when your fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
And I suppose the deep state is also running the USA with the backings of its zionist masters.
You are sounding like a full on conspiracy nutjob at this point.
Can't you see that you have built a version of brexit in your head that cannot possibly exist in the real world, so you have to place the blame for the failure onto outside forces rather than an inherent flaw in the brexit ideal? Brexit is going wrong because the prime minister wants to remain. Brexit is going wrong because the pro-brexit minister in charge of brexit has been pushed off stage by a remain supporting civil servant under the orders of the remain supporting prime minister etc.
The levels of conspiracy you're having to throw out there in order to preserve your brexit ideal is akin to die hard trumpers and their image of trump where every bad thing is a horrible smear by the liberals.
Well, if we're using the Titanic analogy, then Remainers are refusing to board a perfectly good lifeboat because they don't like the colour.
There is no, and will never be, a Brexit that will ever satisfy Remain voters, because obviously they don't want to leave.
Even if May had a 200 seat majority, the DUP sidelined, and Barnier on his knees promising that the EU would pay Britain 100 billion a year for 100 years
it wouldn't be enough. And frankly, I won't waste time trying to convince Remainers otherwise.
Ah, so you choose not to convince people who don't support brexit. It certainly is nothing to do with the fact that you have no evidence to support your side and are incapable of convincing anyone who isn't already a die hard brexiteer.
I'd also posit that there are no lifeboats left as they've been taken by the rich who were pushing for brexit as they are the only people who stand to gain and have the means to weather the storm and come out on top.
I think it's more to do with the fact that the vast majority of people here are so entrenched in their views, that nobody is going to convince anybody of anything.
Is there any undecided voters still here? I doubt it.
If I'm being brutally honest, I've never been the same since the Berlin Wall came down. I don't think any political event in my lifetime, would come close to that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think it's more to do with the fact that the vast majority of people here are so entrenched in their views, that nobody is going to convince anybody of anything.
Is there any undecided voters still here? I doubt it.
No. If there was any evidence that brexit might be good for the country, I'd consider it. But there is none. All the studies and reports, even those produced by the government pushing for brexit (the ones which existed in excruciating detail, then didn't exist, then were just outlines etc.) are just about how bad it will be. Then we'll have to try and secure trade deals with the US and other countries without those trade deals going over the idiotic red lines we set up with the EU because the hardcore brexiteers would consider an agreement to bring in more Indians (for example) a betrayal of the "control our borders" pledge of brexit. And even if that all happens, the country will still be worse off economically and those burdens will be pushed onto the people of the UK who cannot hide their income in accounts in the virgin islands like the rich brexiteers can.
I wouldn’t worry about it. Brexit isn’t going to happen. Either we’ll still be in the customs union, single market and thus the EU after the fact, or article 50 will be revoked altogether and nothing will change. At this rate, the latter is better because the former would be used as an excuse to ‘rejoin’ the EU under even worse terms. You remoaners won. Gina Miller, the Lords, the multi-nationals, the wealthy areas of south east England, the SNP and Shin Finn will get what they want and feth the rest of us.
I’m angriest at myself. I fooled myself into believing that for just one time my vote actually meant something. I won’t bother doing it again.
I admit to nothing. Brexit can, should, and will be a success. We're operating with one hand tied behind our backs because of Tory incompetence.
You already have, I just can't be bothered digging out the quotes.
You knew in advance this would be enacted by incompetents, on an issue made worse by the fact it's both vague and impossible. If there was any clear and easy direction even May could manage to crap something out.
It's not dishonest.
We've had single issue votes in UK political history. Sein Finn in 1918 being a prime example.
Sein Finn which got such a significant share of the Parliament seats? Single issue parties tend to be very localized, and a single issue party doesn't mean that we have a single issue vote.
The Lib Dems did nothing but bang on about the EU at the last election. I should know because I watched their manifesto launch. That's the sacrifices I make.
It can be summed up as thus: Brexit. EU. Brexit. EU. Brexit. EU.
I'm not going to be lectured by people who probably didn't even watch or read a fraction of Lib Dem campaign material.
I know what I read and witnessed, and people who didn't even follow it are trying to convince me otherwise?
Pah.
You're arguing against strawmen again. We all know the Lib Dems campaigned purely on Brexit; what we're saying is that Lib Dems losing has nothing to do with peoples stance on Brexit, because people aren't single stance voters (on the whole), and the Lib Dems have become toxic.
If you're claiming Brexit must happen because Lib Dems lost votes on a reverse Brexit campaign, you must also agree it shouldn't because the Tories lost votes on a pro-Brexit campaign.
If it wasn't for people like me willing to take a risk, we'd still be living in caves and banging rocks together, whilst discussing the latest migration paths of mammoths.
Human history is full of people taking risks. That's why were talking about sending people to Mars, rather than trembling in our caves.
But you've said yourself you're not taking any personal risk, because you've said you believe Brexit can't make your lot any worse (even though I pointed out otherwise). It's all fine and well to go on about risk when you're safe (just like Johnson, Farage and Reese-Mogg - they are all insulated), and those who stand to lose out disagree with you. Brexit isn't doing anything to move us further away from caves, in fact it's the opposite since it's empirically hurting UK science and research.
So you've got 2 logical fallacies here. Some risk is good, so all risk is good, and that you're some sort of champion because you're willing to take a risk (which you don't think will affect you).
My kids futures are at real risk, despite me being well off. I don't think any of the potential outcomes of Brexit are worth it, and I know that when it goes badly, those responsible will pass the buck and I'll need to try and explain to my kids why we screwed them over. At least I'll be able to say I did what I could.
Future War Cultist wrote: I wouldn’t worry about it. Brexit isn’t going to happen. Either we’ll still be in the customs union, single market and thus the EU after the fact, or article 50 will be revoked altogether and nothing will change. At this rate, the latter is better because the former would be used as an excuse to ‘rejoin’ the EU under even worse terms. You remoaners won. Gina Miller, the Lords, the multi-nationals, the wealthy areas of south east England, the SNP and Shin Finn will get what they want and feth the rest of us.
I’m angriest at myself. I fooled myself into believing that for just one time my vote actually meant something. I won’t bother doing it again.
To be fair, you wanted to get what YOU want, and feth the rest of THEM, so my sympathy is extremely limited. I clearly remember being told that the harm that would be done to Ireland was of no consequence, and that people shouldn't even worry about it when voting. Well, fine. I don't care about your feelings over your idea of brexit being thwarted either. I want the least harm to my country and my family, and that's you guys staying in CU and SM. You got outplayed in the negotiations, but you never really had much chance - like a wasp negotiating with a truck windshield.
Well, if we're using the Titanic analogy, then Remainers are refusing to board a perfectly good lifeboat because they don't like the colour.
No, it'd be more like the Remainers refusing to board because the lifeboats look iffy and the ship isn't actually sinking.
There is no, and will never be, a Brexit that will ever satisfy Remain voters, because obviously they don't want to leave.
Probably. Leaving yields no benefits as far as I can see.
Even if May had a 200 seat majority, the DUP sidelined, and Barnier on his knees promising that the EU would pay Britain 100 billion a year for 100 years
it wouldn't be enough.
I'd have been happy with any kind of clear majority that mean I was in the minority, we didn't even get that.
Future War Cultist wrote: I wouldn’t worry about it. Brexit isn’t going to happen. Either we’ll still be in the customs union, single market and thus the EU after the fact, or article 50 will be revoked altogether and nothing will change. At this rate, the latter is better because the former would be used as an excuse to ‘rejoin’ the EU under even worse terms. You remoaners won. Gina Miller, the Lords, the multi-nationals, the wealthy areas of south east England, the SNP and Shin Finn will get what they want and feth the rest of us.
I’m angriest at myself. I fooled myself into believing that for just one time my vote actually meant something. I won’t bother doing it again.
To be fair, you wanted to get what YOU want, and feth the rest of THEM, so my sympathy is extremely limited. I clearly remember being told that the harm that would be done to Ireland was of no consequence, and that people shouldn't even worry about it when voting. Well, fine. I don't care about your feelings over your idea of brexit being thwarted either. I want the least harm to my country and my family, and that's you guys staying in CU and SM. You got outplayed in the negotiations, but you never really had much chance - like a wasp negotiating with a truck windshield.
I've never wished any harm on Ireland, and although I appreciate Britain's shameful historic legacy in Ireland, the vast majority of British people are not to blame for that and wish Ireland no harm.
Is it fair on these people that they can't peacefully decide their nation's future in a vote in case a minority at the Irish border get upset?
Millions of people are being denied their democratic right to determine their nation's future in a customs union with the EU because of a few thousand people at the border.
That is a situation that cannot continue indefinitely. It's not fair on Britain and it's not fair on Ireland, because it will cause nothing but resentment and trouble.
Future War Cultist wrote: I wouldn’t worry about it. Brexit isn’t going to happen. Either we’ll still be in the customs union, single market and thus the EU after the fact, or article 50 will be revoked altogether and nothing will change. At this rate, the latter is better because the former would be used as an excuse to ‘rejoin’ the EU under even worse terms. You remoaners won. Gina Miller, the Lords, the multi-nationals, the wealthy areas of south east England, the SNP and Shin Finn will get what they want and feth the rest of us.
I’m angriest at myself. I fooled myself into believing that for just one time my vote actually meant something. I won’t bother doing it again.
To be fair, you wanted to get what YOU want, and feth the rest of THEM, so my sympathy is extremely limited. I clearly remember being told that the harm that would be done to Ireland was of no consequence, and that people shouldn't even worry about it when voting. Well, fine. I don't care about your feelings over your idea of brexit being thwarted either. I want the least harm to my country and my family, and that's you guys staying in CU and SM. You got outplayed in the negotiations, but you never really had much chance - like a wasp negotiating with a truck windshield.
I could flip that around about you. You who all love the EU always got your way, and those of us unhappy with it were always made to lump it. Not happy with the corruption, waste and extravagance? feth you. Not happy with the open boarders? feth you. Not happy with the lack of accountability and transparency? feth you. You rather Drunker didn’t get the commission job? feth you. You wouldn’t have argeed to the Lisbon Treaty if asked? feth you. Your PM wants to make you accept the euro because they’re after a cushy eu position and this time his chancellor isn’t going to stop him? feth you. Take a vote if it’ll make you happy. That’s your answer? feth you, do it again. Actually no wait, we’ll just do it anyway. feth you.
Mate, if you didn't want Junker to be president (I didn't either) you should have voted for a socialist candidate for European Parliament or paid attention when David Cameron took his party out of the EPP and therefore removed himself from the decision making. Not happy with corruption? You've got a big country that could have changed that. Not happy with open borders? You weren't in Schengen and could have used the migration brake. Not happy with accountability and transparency? I refer you to my previous point about the UK being one of the three biggest players. The Lisbon Treaty point that's fair.
I'm not from the UK, I'm from Ireland. Brexiteers right on this thread told me we should only consider our own country, so I make no apologies for looking for the interests of my country to be looked after at the expense of your wishes. After all, it's turnabout and fair play.
I'm from Ireland. Brexiteers right on this thread told me we should only consider our own country, so I make no apologies for looking for the interests of my country to be looked after at the expense of your wishes. After all, it's turnabout and fair play.
Well, that is something I can respect.
and I've been saying for 2 years that Britain should have been doing the same.
I like Ireland and the Irish but as I often say, the Republic is a foreign country, and Britain has to do what's best for Britain.
Let the fanatics have the keys to the castle. They're welcome to it, and good luck to them. It is the logical conclusion to the decline of the Western World and our current system.
The three stages in the cycle of Democracy:
1. An informed populace who are vigilant and eager to particpate and defend their democracy having overthrown the previous corrupt system in a revolution. Voter turnout is high, the rulers mostly act fearlessly in the public good. The early years of the American Republic are a good example of this...
2. A complacent populace with a system that becomes steadily more and more corrupt. The system still functions to an extent, but gradually erodes over the years as participation drops, the leaders stop governing to the good of the nation, and entropy gradually sets in. Europe 2018 as an example.
3. A corrupt and tyrant government, that pays lip service to democratic values and the rule of law. Populace pushed to far, and revolution usually ensues.
That makes the assumption that past predicts the future. Previous revolutions people had muskets and bayonets so the balance of power between civilian and military was a lot less. The technology scales are widely different now, the assumption that a corrupt, tyrant government wouldn't just gas its own populace if it thought it might lose control is what happens - and we have a modern example.
Also revolutions often require the assistance of foreign powers to supply "advisors" money, weapons and know how to succeed. The American Revolution (really their first civil war) would not have been won without the French.
Once most revolutions succeed you just get a different set of people at the top and they quickly succumb to corruption, cronyism and everything else that goes with running a country, empire or whatever.
All that gak with how the commissioner is appointed is absolute bollocks. We have to rely on MEPs and heads of state deciding for us instead of a direct vote? feth that.
Yes, sorry sacks of gak were put in charge of the negotiations on our side, but their main problem was always trying to pander to the remain side with their pathetic fudges of staying inside eu institutions instead of declaring a clean break and taking the steps to seeing that out. That scum bag Gina Miller was gloating that one decision from one vote isn’t permanent and can be changed. Why doesn’t that ever apply to the eu? Once they decide on something it’s final and is to never reversed. fething slimely hypocritical bare faced cheek.
The only plus side out of all this is that once we’re taken into an eu army and the euro without public votes on it, I can say I told you so. That’ll be a great stick to beat remoaners over the head with.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There was no British Empire in the 1000s, 1100s, 1200s, 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, 1600s. Britain didn't exist until 1707.
Now you're just arguing semantics. The British Empire started getting underway in the 1500's in Ireland and at the turn of the 17th century in the Americas. Just because it was still England at the time doesn't mean you can ignore the earlier imperial aspects. Up untill 1600 England wasn't doing particularly well economically either, just roughly average.
All that gak with how the commissioner is appointed is absolute bollocks. We have to rely on MEPs and heads of state deciding for us instead of a direct vote? feth that.
Yes, sorry sacks of gak were put in charge of the negotiations on our side, but their main problem was always trying to pander to the remain side with their pathetic fudges of staying inside eu institutions instead of declaring a clean break and taking the steps to seeing that out. That scum bag Gina Miller was gloating that one decision from one vote isn’t permanent and can be changed. Why doesn’t that ever apply to the eu? Once they decide on something it’s final and is to never reversed. fething slimely hypocritical bare faced cheek.
The only plus side out of all this is that once we’re taken into an eu army and the euro without public votes on it, I can say I told you so. That’ll be a great stick to beat remoaners over the head with.
The main problem wasn't pandering to remain, it was that to fulfill the red lines of Maybot (which were set down to pander to the brexiteers) were suicide and would cripple the UK's economy in all sectors.
All that gak with how the commissioner is appointed is absolute bollocks. We have to rely on MEPs and heads of state deciding for us instead of a direct vote? feth that.
Yes, sorry sacks of gak were put in charge of the negotiations on our side, but their main problem was always trying to pander to the remain side with their pathetic fudges of staying inside eu institutions instead of declaring a clean break and taking the steps to seeing that out. That scum bag Gina Miller was gloating that one decision from one vote isn’t permanent and can be changed. Why doesn’t that ever apply to the eu? Once they decide on something it’s final and is to never reversed. fething slimely hypocritical bare faced cheek.
The only plus side out of all this is that once we’re taken into an eu army and the euro without public votes on it, I can say I told you so. That’ll be a great stick to beat remoaners over the head with.
Their main problem is the reality that the UK is in a very weak negotiating position and has alienated key allies with it's behaviour. As to the appointment of Junker, it works exactly the same as the British Parliament - the prefered candidate of the largest party in the European Parliament (the European People's Party, which the Tories used to be a major part of until they pulled themselves out to be part of an irrelevant fringe Eurosceptic grouping) is the President. You don't directly vote for Prime Minister either.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There was no British Empire in the 1000s, 1100s, 1200s, 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, 1600s. Britain didn't exist until 1707.
Now you're just arguing semantics. The British Empire started getting underway in the 1500's in Ireland and at the turn of the 17th century in the Americas. Just because it was still England at the time doesn't mean you can ignore the earlier imperial aspects. Up untill 1600 England wasn't doing particularly well economically either, just roughly average.
When you're dealing with Britain, there has to be semantics because Britain is a union of two former sovereign nations.
Scotland can't be blamed for what England was doing in Ireland in the 1500s or in the Americas in the 1600s.
And what about your lot? The Dutch were quite powerful back then. Sailed up the Thames and sunk the Royal Navy
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There was no British Empire in the 1000s, 1100s, 1200s, 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, 1600s. Britain didn't exist until 1707.
Now you're just arguing semantics. The British Empire started getting underway in the 1500's in Ireland and at the turn of the 17th century in the Americas. Just because it was still England at the time doesn't mean you can ignore the earlier imperial aspects. Up untill 1600 England wasn't doing particularly well economically either, just roughly average.
When you're dealing with Britain, there has to be semantics because Britain is a union of two former sovereign nations.
Scotland can't be blamed for what England was doing in Ireland in the 1500s or in the Americas in the 1600s.
And what about your lot? The Dutch were quite powerful back then. Sailed up the Thames and sunk the Royal Navy
I'm not saying anything about blame. But the English Empire was directly absorbed by the British Empire. Inherently the British Empire has roots that go further back then 1707. The Byzantine Empire didn't just spring into being in 476 either. In a good many ways, the British Empire was a continuation of the English one.
Yeah we had our moments of strength in our Golden Age. Didn't help when Britain destroyed us with the help of half of Europe. Britain's age was started by destroying the Dutch one We weren't much friendlier to the rest of the world though, lot of bloodshed and genocide.
Our country was build on trade and imperialism. We can't survive on the level we are now without the EU. Our whole infrastructure is geared towards being a transit nation.
All that gak with how the commissioner is appointed is absolute bollocks. We have to rely on MEPs and heads of state deciding for us instead of a direct vote? feth that.
Yes, sorry sacks of gak were put in charge of the negotiations on our side, but their main problem was always trying to pander to the remain side with their pathetic fudges of staying inside eu institutions instead of declaring a clean break and taking the steps to seeing that out. That scum bag Gina Miller was gloating that one decision from one vote isn’t permanent and can be changed. Why doesn’t that ever apply to the eu? Once they decide on something it’s final and is to never reversed. fething slimely hypocritical bare faced cheek.
The only plus side out of all this is that once we’re taken into an eu army and the euro without public votes on it, I can say I told you so. That’ll be a great stick to beat remoaners over the head with.
The Tories are pandering to businesses and themselves (for the most part) rather than the Remainers. But with almost half the vote the Remain public can't be ignored either.
As mentioned, Mays "red line" compliant Brexit would result in essentially the destruction of the economy - a loss in the region of 20%, which would give you austerity like never seen before.
As for Gina Miller being a scum bag. You should be regarding her as a hero for sticking up for your much raved about Parliamentary Sovereignty.
She only cared about parliamentary sovereignty when it suited her. All Remainers did. None of you stood up and complained when previous prime ministers were signing us to more eu control without a vote in Parliament. Now when the shoe is on the other foot it’s suddenly wheeled out as a defence. And again, “decisions can be changed, except when it’s with the eu, then it’s final”.
In an ideal word the referendum result should have been enough. Parliament can make decisions on our behalf most of the time but a referendum is supposed to be the people making the decision themselves above parliament. We were assured that whatever the outcome of the vote it would be enacted upon. But I smelled a rat when it was made ‘advisory’ only. That created a heads they win tails you lose situation for leavers.
I’m not going to bother wasting my time voting again.
Future War Cultist wrote: None of you stood up and complained when previous prime ministers were signing us to more eu control without a vote in Parliament.
Because that never happened.
All of the treaties which extended the remit of the EU were ratified by Parliament. It is required by EU law that all such treaties must be ratified by the member states before they become law.
The only way it can be ratified in the UK is for a bill to be passed in parliament.
Future War Cultist wrote: She only cared about parliamentary sovereignty when it suited her. All Remainers did. None of you stood up and complained when previous prime ministers were signing us to more eu control without a vote in Parliament. Now when the shoe is on the other foot it’s suddenly wheeled out as a defence. And again, “decisions can be changed, except when it’s with the eu, then it’s final”.
In an ideal word the referendum result should have been enough. Parliament can make decisions on our behalf most of the time but a referendum is supposed to be the people making the decision themselves above parliament. We were assured that whatever the outcome of the vote it would be enacted upon. But I smelled a rat when it was made ‘advisory’ only. That created a heads they win tails you lose situation for leavers.
I’m not going to bother wasting my time voting again.
In a way I do think you have a point. If Brexit can be voted for in a referendum and people are told their vote has meaning, and then disregarded because it is difficult to implement, that will lead to voter disengagement and disillusionment. However, I think the blame for that can largely (but not completely) be laid at the door of the various liars who have been selling snake oil to Leave voters, particularly the likes of Davis, Johnson and Gove, all of whom played down the issues and made out the negotiation would be easy. Whether through ignorance or arrogance, this was the wrong thing to do.
I would be happy enough if just NI was left in the Customs Union and Single Market, and the rest of the UK can do what it likes. It would still hurt Ireland's economy, but it might cause us to integrate further with the continent in future which would be a good thing culturally and economically, and I doubt all trade between UK and Ireland will cease, it's just impractical.
As an outsider though I think staying in at least the CU would be the best thing for the UK if it is going to go ahead with Brexit.
And so do you. But at least she ensured it'd happen so that May can't just change things on you. Thin end of the wedge and all.
I mean, we all know the Parliamentary Sovereignty and democracy were gak excuse, otherwise you wouldn't be so against them when it might not go your way.
None of you stood up and complained when previous prime ministers were signing us to more eu control without a vote in Parliament.
That's fair. I don't think I was old enough at the time.
In an ideal word the referendum result should have been enough.
Absolutely, if there was a clear outcome for the referendum it would have been.
I’m not going to bother wasting my time voting again.
It's your loss.
But you need to remember that even if you don't get your way (and for Brexiteers I feel that's impossible), your vote still meant something - you've highlighting the huge rift between parliament and the people, and the discontent in the population. None of it could be fixed by Brexit, but maybe politicians will be more careful in future.
Future War Cultist wrote: None of you stood up and complained when previous prime ministers were signing us to more eu control without a vote in Parliament.
Because that never happened.
All of the treaties which extended the remit of the EU were ratified by Parliament. It is required by EU law that all such treaties must be ratified by the member states before they become law.
The only way it can be ratified in the UK is for a bill to be passed in parliament.
Don't worry, good leavers never let things like facts and reality get in the way of a good anti EU rant.
With the Garden Bridge Trust now 90 days late in filing its accounts, Dan Anderson sifts through the evidence that is available to try and find out how £46.3 million of public funds was spent with nothing to show for it
As of today, the Garden Bridge Trust (GBT) is 90 days past the deadline for filing its accounts with the Charity Commission and is now also late in filing with Companies House. In the absence of these accounts, it is natural for people to ask: ‘Where did all the money go?’
In fact, we know quite a bit. As a specialist in new visitor destinations, who gradually became a critic of the Garden Bridge, I have sadly gobbled up every morsel of information that Transport for London (TfL) and the Greater London Authority (GLA) have provided through piecemeal responses to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Eventually, a picture starts to form. This is what we know:
First, a general point about the final bill, which is likely to end up at around £46.3 million.
Most of the expenditure on the Garden Bridge was authorised by then-mayor Boris Johnson through Mayoral Decision MD1355 (27 June 2014). Johnson directed TfL to provide the GBT with £60 million of public money — funded equally by TfL and the Department for Transport. Specifically, the decision says: ‘The government has agreed … to make a £30 million contribution towards delivery costs and the mayor has agreed to match this with an additional contribution of £30 million.’
However, MD1355 contained within it a crucial clause to protect the public purse. It goes on to say: ‘Payments to GBT will be staged to cover pre- and post-construction contract award activities, with conditions to be met before funds are provided. It is proposed that around £8 million each will be provided by TfL and the government in the precontract phase; if the project does not proceed beyond this stage, this funding will be at risk.’
In plain English, that clause is there to say the following: Any number of risks could thwart the project. The GBT may not be able to secure the land. It might not get a full planning consent. It may not raise enough private money to build or operate the bridge. We are willing to put up to £16 million of taxpayer money ‘at risk’ to resolve all of these ‘preconstruction’ issues. If the GBT gets to a position where it can let the construction contract — because who would award a construction contract if they weren’t ready to start construction? — then we will release the rest of the money.
That was a sensible precaution. It was intended to cap the taxpayer’s exposure to preconstruction risk at £16 million. It was then given more detailed expression in TFL’s funding agreement with the GBT, which specified the seven conditions that the GBT would need to satisfy.
Yet here we are (Figure 1) — more than £46 million spent and no bridge. What went wrong?
The clearest way to think about expenditure on the Garden Bridge is to break it down into its three main stages:
Expenditure by TfL before the GBT took over
Grant payments made to the GBT after the funding agreement was signed
Outstanding liabilities faced by the GBT since the project was cancelled
Direct expenditure by Transport for London
We know most about what happened in that first phase of spending because a full record of invoices was released by TfL in response to an FOI request (FOI-1243-1718). This amounts to some £9.7 million spent by TfL while the trust was still being formed.
The most striking observation about the detail of this expenditure (Figure 2) is how much money went to a single company: Arup.
As the lead consultant on the project, Arup no doubt carried the cost for a range of subcontractors, including Heatherwick Studio, which by the end of the project expected to earn some £2.7 million.
Even so, there is no question that Arup had an extraordinary financial stake in the Garden Bridge and its continuation. This is problematic because of the ‘revolving door’ suspicions that would later dog the project. TfL’s then managing director of planning Richard de Cani, would later be involved in critical spending decisions, after having accepted a new position at Arup (Figure 2).
Grant payments to the Garden Bridge Trust
The Funding Agreement between TfL and the GBT was signed in July 2015. That is when the GBT took over full responsibility for the project’s spending.
The detail becomes murky after that point. As a charity, the trust is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act and has been consistently late in filing accounts. TfL officers regularly attended the trust’s board meetings but, astonishingly, did not maintain a record of their minutes (FOI-1144-1718).
It is, however, possible to track the rate at which the TfL grant was paid out (Figure 3).
From July 2015 to March 2016, TfL released £27 million of grant funding to the trust. About £3.4 million was spent on legal, property and planning advice, but a full £23 million was spent on:
Progressing the design
Obtaining licenses, permits and planning approvals
Selection of trees and plants
River survey and ground investigation works
Procurement of contractors
Placing orders for materials
How that can amount to £23 million in just nine months remains something of a mystery, even to the TfL and GLA officers closest to the project. An exchange of emails in August 2017 between the GLA’s executive director of development, Fiona Fletcher-Smith, and TfL’s Andy Brown, reveals just how little they knew about how the GBT was spending its grant:
FFS: ‘Anticipating further questions, is there a schedule of payments from TfL to show how much grant was paid at each point and when the payment was made? Also, are the trust able to provide detail on what they actually spent our grant on (presume it is mostly salaries?)?’
AB: ‘I don’t have a detailed breakdown of what the trust spent their grant on but I think it is mostly professional fees for eg Arup, Bouygues, lawyers and other consultants.’
Note that a common complaint from applicants to other grant-giving bodies (eg Arts Council England, Sport England), is that the monitoring process is too onerous. These funders are routinely accused of micro-managing projects, expecting regular updates on how the money is being spent. That TfL did not come close to that level of scrutiny is another lesson of the Garden Bridge: TfL is not a fit-for-purpose grant funder of any mayor’s whimsical pet project. It shouldn’t be used that way.
We do know that 40 per cent of this spending came after the GBT awarded the construction contract. The letting of that contract has thus become controversial. It not only triggered the release of another £10 million in grants but is also the cause of the resulting termination costs that will likely add another £9 million to the bill. It was, in other words, a £19 million decision that has never been properly explained.
Remember that the Funding Agreement and its ‘parent’ Mayoral Decision were both predicated on the GBT satisfying a set of conditions before further funding could be released. Officials at the DFT never accepted that those conditions were satisfied. The National Audit Office was highly critical of the decision in its report, and Margaret Hodge didn’t mince words about it in hers:
‘I am shocked that the trust entered into this financial commitment with so many issues unresolved,’ she wrote, ‘and it is astonishing that the mayor, TfL or the Department for Transport did not stop the trust from signing this contract.’ (p30)
Despite repeated requests from the London Assembly, TfL Commissioner Mike Brown has never explained how Richard De Cani and his colleagues satisfied themselves that the funding conditions were met. Brown wrote to the Chair of the London Assembly Oversight Committee only to say: ‘We considered the evidence supplied [by the GBT], as well as the wider information we had available on the status of the project from our regular progress meetings with the trust, and determined that the conditions of payment had been met.’
That’s it. That’s the most complete explanation that we have about a £19 million decision that went horribly wrong. You have to admire the chutzpah.
While this nebulous statement patently failed to answer the committee’s question about ‘criteria and processes’ , it was enough to give Johnson the cover he needed to dodge some important questions when he was summoned to give his own evidence to the committee. When questioned by assembly member Tom Copley about the continued release of funding, the former mayor repeatedly quoted these lines from Mike Brown, as if they were the final word on the matter. It was a revealing insight into how one misleading statement can be used to support another until our flimsy grip on the truth is just lost in the fog.
Project termination costs
The final stage of expenditure relates to the trust’s outstanding liabilities when the project was terminated. This will amount to some £9 million.
These costs are significant because they were incurred after the May 2016 election. Johnson and his Conservative allies on the London Assembly have therefore suggested that this can be attributed to his successor Sadiq Khan’s year-long prevarication over the project.
That theory is not, however, supported by the facts. Most of the final £9 million is a direct consequence of the trust’s precipitous decision to award the construction contract. TfL’s Andy Brown says this plainly in an August 2017 post-mortem email.
‘The Trust’s main needs for the £9 million are:
To pay contractual termination payments to their contractors – primarily Bouygues
To pay back private funders who had agreed to release grant money before the beginning of construction, on the condition that it be paid back if the project never made it to construction – I have never been given a list of these funders.’
By the end of June 2016, according to another email from Andy Brown, ‘pre-construction fabrication [was] already underway’.
In other words, the trust began to incur these liabilities from the moment that it awarded the construction contract – under Mayor Johnson. Correspondence between TfL and the DfT confirms that at least 80 per cent of the liability was incurred by the middle of July 2016 – less than three months into the new mayor’s term – and it was fully spent by the end of September.
Short of cancelling the project on his first day in office, there is little that a new mayor could have done to limit this cost. Even if Khan had initiated the Hodge Review in his first month in office, most of the £9 million would have been spent before it reported.
Consequences?
Perhaps the most incredible thing about the whole Garden Bridge debacle is the fact that no one involved with it has uttered the faintest mea culpa, much less faced any material consequences.
Context is everything. Some have trivialised the Garden Bridge scandal by setting it in the context of total TfL spending. It is true that a £46 million write-off amounts to little more than a rounding error when lost in the scale of TfL’s £10 billion budget. That’s certainly one way to look at it.
Future War Cultist wrote: She only cared about parliamentary sovereignty when it suited her. All Remainers did. None of you stood up and complained when previous prime ministers were signing us to more eu control without a vote in Parliament. Now when the shoe is on the other foot it’s suddenly wheeled out as a defence. And again, “decisions can be changed, except when it’s with the eu, then it’s final”.
Nonsense. You are wrong about the EU control and there is only one side that bangs on about parliamentary sovereignty until it does not get them what they want. Only one side that wanted a vote to change all of the past legislation then say it is final.
In an ideal word the referendum result should have been enough. Parliament can make decisions on our behalf most of the time but a referendum is supposed to be the people making the decision themselves above parliament. We were assured that whatever the outcome of the vote it would be enacted upon. But I smelled a rat when it was made ‘advisory’ only. That created a heads they win tails you lose situation for leavers.
I’m not going to bother wasting my time voting again.
It was always advisory. Referendums are in the UK. I think you need to read what parliamentary sovereignty means. One of the things it means that it can not be bound by referendums. You are only wasting your vote if you don't know what you are voting on.
Having said that, we are leaving the EU. It may not be 100% to your liking, but then that was always going to be the case. Noone was ever going to get 100% what they wanted voting leave.
If it wasn't for people like me willing to take a risk, we'd still be living in caves and banging rocks together
Except that in this case, we're a group of people all making our way out of the cave together, and the risk you want to take is to go right to the back and curl up in a foetal ball and hope for the best.
OK, the past treaties were ratified by parliament. I acknowledge my mistake. My apologies. Go ahead and laugh at me now.
I’m off now to play a game of AoS. In the meantime, can someone answer this sincere question for me? Those of us who are unhappy with the status quo of the EU, and who felt that the only way to get real change was to pack up and leave, what else would you have had us do? This was the first time since the early seventies that we were actually asked for our opinion of the European project. And before that Cameron went to the EU on his hands and knees pleading for a better deal and got scraps in return. Nothing could be changed because it was against the treaties. Treaties that, whilst ratified by parliament, were never put to the regular voters. And once signed they couldn’t be undone. Because the EU only goes forward, never backwards or even sideways. What would you have had us do?
No mockery for being wrong, noone knows everything; at least you accepted it instead of spending 2 pages dodging it!
I agree you're in a hard position, and voting to Leave was the correct option for you. You could also be trying to vote in MEP's who engage with the EU project and letting them know how you feel.
Firstly, kudos to you for acknowledging a mistake. No-one will laugh at you for that. We should all be open to accepting new information.
Secondly, it is true that if you genuinely believe the only way to get change was to leave, then you would vote leave.
However the fact is that various UK governments of the past were unhappy with the state of the EU, and went and got change. One example is Thatcher's rebate.
So really I don't think it is right to believe the only way to get change is to leave. If anything, leaving will allow the EU to change in ways that the UK will not like, because we won't have our seat at the high table any more.
But the UK can't ignore the EU because it is our nearest neighbour, full of close political and cultural allies, and one of the world's largest economies.
@Future War Cultist. The answer is vote in the European elections. Turnout in those in the UK has always been abysmal; also preferably vote for a candidate who is actually going to bother turning up and trying to change things, rather than laughing boy Farage, who just claims his expenses and sits with his feet up “in protest “.
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m off now to play a game of AoS. In the meantime, can someone answer this sincere question for me? Those of us who are unhappy with the status quo of the EU, and who felt that the only way to get real change was to pack up and leave, what else would you have had us do? This was the first time since the early seventies that we were actually asked for our opinion of the European project. And before that Cameron went to the EU on his hands and knees pleading for a better deal and got scraps in return. Nothing could be changed because it was against the treaties. Treaties that, whilst ratified by parliament, were never put to the regular voters. And once signed they couldn’t be undone. Because the EU only goes forward, never backwards or even sideways. What would you have had us do?
I think the Cameron thing is easily explained. Britain already got a good deal out of the EU and it wanted even more. Giving the UK more and more every time they would come asking for it would end badly for the EU. Plus how hard did Cameron really try?
Jadenim wrote: @Future War Cultist. The answer is vote in the European elections. Turnout in those in the UK has always been abysmal; also preferably vote for a candidate who is actually going to bother turning up and trying to change things, rather than laughing boy Farage, who just claims his expenses and sits with his feet up “in protest “.
This. Farage and his ilk are terrible representatives of the UK, because they will stand and make grandstanding speeches about the ills of the EU but not actually do anything to try and fix those ills as if those issues actually got addressed, people wouldn't need to elect them anymore and they'd lose their paycheck.
I don't understand though. If the time runs out, how will the EU be able to grant renegotiation? Surely it would just mean the UK crashes out? Otherwise the whole process could be dragged on forever. I think this point needs to be clarified before the debate on this in the UK or the whole thing will be poisoned by half truths. I mean, maaaybe the EU would grant an extension on Article 50, but it's hardly a sure thing, is it? And if they do, there's no way to know if parliament will accept any new deal anyway, so what happens then? I just don't see how this can work when there are 27 other countries and more parliaments involved. The debate on this in the UK seems very inward looking. Can anyone shed light on this? Am I missing something?
Regarding the parliamentary vote; you're right, if they decline it we're left with stay or crash out unless the EU grant us an extension. But this forces May to get a deal that she thinks Parliament will approve, which puts a lot of pressure on her to actually do a good job
I'm still waiting for DINLT to explain to me how the Norman Conquest was not the British Isles being taken over by a European power, since they stopped making their own decisions about 66 years into that thousand years he was talking about.
Herzlos wrote: It's not like I've never been wrong before either
Regarding the parliamentary vote; you're right, if they decline it we're left with stay or crash out unless the EU grant us an extension. But this forces May to get a deal that she thinks Parliament will approve, which puts a lot of pressure on her to actually do a good job
Hmmm. I would have hoped she was doing the best job she was capable of already, considering how important this is. I hope this vote is meaningful and results in a better outcome for Britain but I'm sceptical.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:If it wasn't for people like me willing to take a risk, we'd still be living in caves and banging rocks together, whilst discussing the latest migration paths of mammoths.
Human history is full of people taking risks. That's why were talking about sending people to Mars, rather than trembling in our caves.
From your posts in this thread we are talking about completely different types of risk taking. Your type of risk seems to be more along the lines of "randomly jumping of a cliff because somebody else said it might not be a good idea" and nothing else. That risk doesn't lead to improvements but to senseless suffering, besides: banging rocks together gave our predecessors fires, which in turn led to them being able to cook food and better absorb nutrients from their food, which in turn improve their cognitive capabilities, which in turn allowed for innovation and improvement like—after a long line of improvements—sending people to Mars.
So keep banging rocks together and look what happens instead of just randomly running into your doom because curiosity and risk are not the same.
Herzlos wrote: It's not like I've never been wrong before either
Regarding the parliamentary vote; you're right, if they decline it we're left with stay or crash out unless the EU grant us an extension. But this forces May to get a deal that she thinks Parliament will approve, which puts a lot of pressure on her to actually do a good job
Hmmm. I would have hoped she was doing the best job she was capable of already, considering how important this is. I hope this vote is meaningful and results in a better outcome for Britain but I'm sceptical.
I suspect you're right, I'm just hoping she is capable of a decent job otherwise we're completely screwed.
Da Boss wrote: I don't understand though. If the time runs out, how will the EU be able to grant renegotiation? Surely it would just mean the UK crashes out? Otherwise the whole process could be dragged on forever. I think this point needs to be clarified before the debate on this in the UK or the whole thing will be poisoned by half truths. I mean, maaaybe the EU would grant an extension on Article 50, but it's hardly a sure thing, is it? And if they do, there's no way to know if parliament will accept any new deal anyway, so what happens then? I just don't see how this can work when there are 27 other countries and more parliaments involved. The debate on this in the UK seems very inward looking. Can anyone shed light on this? Am I missing something?
The exit process isn't defined in Article 50, and we are all making it up as we go along.
The EU will easily be able to grant an extension if necessary -- it already has effectively done so by the "transition period". The EU doesn't want the UK to leave, and wants to keep the UK as closely involved as possible.
As for the EU getting 27 countries to agree, somehow that always gets done in the end.
Hard Right Tories decrying the Lords' ruling as 'an effort to subvert the will of the people'.....
No. It's a ruling to enforce the basis of our democracy - that it's for Parliament, not a handful of hard right nutters, to best decide our course going forward.
The Brexit vote was NOT a carte blanche for frothing maniacs to do whatever they wanted. Indeed, it was a poor defined motion, based on outright lies.
Radio 4 had a Lord on this morning and was asking what his mandate was for the Lords voting against the bill.
What he should have said but didn't, is that this is how the UK parliament works. It's the constitution.
If you don't like it, by all means campaign to change it, but this is the system as it currently stands, so the actions of the Lords are completely legitimate.
All this "The Will of the People" stuff is populism. Over 48% of the people don't have that particular will.
Da Boss wrote: Hey, it's alright man. I can be a dick sometimes too and I was poking the bear. Thanks for apologising though, there's not enough of that around.
I'm sorry that this situation has disillusioned you so much.
Kilkrazy wrote: Radio 4 had a Lord on this morning and was asking what his mandate was for the Lords voting against the bill.
What he should have said but didn't, is that this is how the UK parliament works. It's the constitution.
If you don't like it, by all means campaign to change it, but this is the system as it currently stands, so the actions of the Lords are completely legitimate.
All this "The Will of the People" stuff is populism. Over 48% of the people don't have that particular will.
I can understand why the Lords would be particularly sensitive about being accused of being 'undemocratic'.
Convention is very important in UK politics, we'll end up with a written constitution like the hoi polloi counties if our betters start throwing their weight around just because they can!
None of them explained what it was they wanted during the vote. Indeed, if you go digging, there's even video clips of Herr Farage saying 'nobody is talking about the customs union'.
And since the outcome became known, there's been a hardcore group within the Tory party determined to press solely their own agenda, backed by Das Heil and Express. Crash out! Crush the Saboteurs! ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE! and so on and so forth.
Giving Parliament a vote, and thus taking it out of the sole hand of swivel eyed nutters, is not defying 'the will of the people'. It's just plain old democracy in action.
I think it's fairly clear that there were three core Brexiteer motives, all to do with sovereignty. These may not have been clearly articulated or validated in practical terms, but these were the key points:
1. Control immigration.
2. Stop EU legal directives affecting UK law. (Bonfire of the red tape, get back our fish, and stop the ECHR stopping us deporting terrorists.)
3. Gain the ability to make separate trade deals. (So we can get rich.)
2 and 3 cannot be realised without leaving the Customs Union, which turns out to be bad for trade as well as the Northern Ireland agreement. That is the kind of practical legal detail that has emerged during the post-referendum talks.
Yea likewise, the goals were clear, it was just the practicality of achieving them which was/is in doubt.
The Guardian are talking about immigration today.
The decision not to grant extra visas just to fill holes in NHS jobs is a necessary one imo.
We need to escape the vicious circle of cutting training and professional development budgets for homegrown talent, and then claiming we need immigration because the pool of skilled workers doesn't exist in this country.
Doing an expose on Mrs May for being tough on immigration is a strange one though... that's one of the reasons why we elected her!
Well, then don't expect the NHS to be amazing when you underfund it compared to what other European countries spend on their health services (Germany and France spend way more) and also leave it under staffed. You can't wave a magic wand and create more doctors, it will take a decade at least.
Kroem wrote: Yea likewise, the goals were clear, it was just the practicality of achieving them which was/is in doubt.
The Guardian are talking about immigration today.
The decision not to grant extra visas just to fill holes in NHS jobs is a necessary one imo.
We need to escape the vicious circle of cutting training and professional development budgets for homegrown talent, and then claiming we need immigration because the pool of skilled workers doesn't exist in this country.
Doing an expose on Mrs May for being tough on immigration is a strange one though... that's one of the reasons why we elected her!
The government is not required by EU membership not to spend money on training and development.
Besides, there are many reasons for having foreign staff, termporary or permanent, not simply for them to be cheaper. They usually aren't cheaper anyway.
The government is not required by EU membership not to spend money on training and development.
Sorry I didn't intend to imply the two were linked, I was changing the subject. The EU Erasmus scheme is actually a big advantage when it comes to professional development!
Yea there are other reasons, but in this instance the lack of English doctors is being used as the justification to request visas for overseas doctors which is not ideal.
The government is not required by EU membership not to spend money on training and development.
Sorry I didn't intend to imply the two were linked, I was changing the subject. The EU Erasmus scheme is actually a big advantage when it comes to professional development!
Yea there are other reasons, but in this instance the lack of English doctors is being used as the justification to request visas for overseas doctors which is not ideal.
But the lack of english doctors and nurses is the reason why we need visas for overseas doctors and nurses.
The UK government has not been effectively funding the training of doctors and nurses and so has not been training enough. Strain on the NHS has also been increasing as the average age of the population increases (old people typically need more care = more usage of the NHS).
If we don't bring in doctors and nurses from elsewhere we will not have the staff for hospitals, clinics and GP's to function. Bringing in more staff from overseas is not only completely justified, it is required as you can't suddenly rubber stamp a load of english doctors and nurses, training takes a long time.
The government is not required by EU membership not to spend money on training and development.
Sorry I didn't intend to imply the two were linked, I was changing the subject. The EU Erasmus scheme is actually a big advantage when it comes to professional development!
Yea there are other reasons, but in this instance the lack of English doctors is being used as the justification to request visas for overseas doctors which is not ideal.
Coolio, and I completely agree with you about Erasmus and similar EU wide schemes.
If British people don't want to become doctors and nurses, I don't see why it is a problem to have foreign doctors and nurses come and work here. It seems to me that not to do so is a way to let patients down.
That seems to me like treating the symptom not the illness lol!
The problem is not training enough English doctors so lets train more of them, not spend money on recruiting overseas doctors.
Might mean a few more years of longer waiting times but ultimately you will have a much better system at the end of it.
The topic of a NI rise to increase NHS funding has been raised recently by Jeremy Hunt, we have to make sure any extra money is invested properly :-)
I don't think it is the government that sets NHS spending on training, I think it is the NHS management themselves. Government just sets overall budget.
Coolio, and I completely agree with you about Erasmus and similar EU wide schemes.
If British people don't want to become doctors and nurses, I don't see why it is a problem to have foreign doctors and nurses come and work here. It seems to me that not to do so is a way to let patients down.
Some are fine, it shouldn't become an immigration loophole to get around quotas though. Anyway you can't keep brain draining doctors from other countries, we need to create a sustainable system to meet our health needs.
(At least until we invent Emergence Medical Holograms )
Kroem wrote: That seems to me like treating the symptom not the illness lol!
The problem is not training enough English doctors so lets train more of them, not spend money on recruiting overseas doctors.
Might mean a few more years of longer waiting times but ultimately you will have a much better system at the end of it.
The topic of a NI rise to increase NHS funding has been raised recently by Jeremy Hunt, we have to make sure any extra money is invested properly :-)
I don't think it is the government that sets NHS spending on training, I think it is the NHS management themselves. Government just sets overall budget.
The NHS is not the only body that trains doctors and nurses. Doctors and nurses receive their training through both NHS hospitals and the universities that are linked with them. Universities have also seen their direct funding cut by the government, instead getting funding through tuition fees. But that funding has to go towards putting on courses, funding maintenance to university buildings, funding research etc. Then there is the government removing grants for medicine students, replacing them with loans, when such students intending to become doctors and nurses have to study for more years than your typical uni student.
When the government is not giving you the money to treat the problem, and their actions are making becoming a doctor or nurse less attractive (such as increased student debt burden on doctors and nurses, the bollocks they tried to pull with junior doctor contracts etc.), then you have pretty much no choice but to treat the symptom rather than the underlying cause until you have the means of addressing the core problem.
The core problem being a tory government, in this case.
Coolio, and I completely agree with you about Erasmus and similar EU wide schemes.
If British people don't want to become doctors and nurses, I don't see why it is a problem to have foreign doctors and nurses come and work here. It seems to me that not to do so is a way to let patients down.
Some are fine, it shouldn't become an immigration loophole to get around quotas though. Anyway you can't keep brain draining doctors from other countries, we need to create a sustainable system to meet our health needs.
(At least until we invent Emergence Medical Holograms )
If a quota is keeping out people that the UK needs, be they doctors, nurses, scientists etc. based purely on some arbitrary number of foreigners welcome per year, then said quota is nothing but xenophobic pandering.
The core problem being a tory government, in this case.
Oh behave, the problems with the NHS didn't just appear 8 years ago . The core problem is not enough money and too many ill people!
I can see the argument for university changes also having an impact on doctor numbers, but it is also the easiest thing to cut if you are a short sighted manager looking for savings.
We aren't considering the other option, if you can't meet your targets you either make improvements to your processes or de-scope.
I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.
People might rightly say that is against the founding principles of the NHS, but I would counter with saying that a well run service that provide's 80% of your health needs is better than a crisis hit one that can't provide anything properly.
Kroem wrote: People might rightly say that is against the founding principles of the NHS, but I would counter with saying that a well run service that provide's 80% of your health needs is better than a crisis hit one that can't provide anything properly.
But then you have the situation where cancer is a death sentence for any poor person as cancer treatments are incredibly expensive and the NHS cannot afford them if it wants to be able to treat other illnesses.
The quotas do seem pretty arbitrary, and unrelated to actual national needs or the educational output of British born staff. While I wouldn't characterise them as xenophobic, I do question their practical value.
). From a legal perspective personal information should be dealt with in a different way.
