Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
..TBF I can't see many people wanting to move there -- and it's not like there's a pretty slick international transport system anyone could use to live elsewhere.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
As I've said many a time I this thread there is more to the City of London than EU passport related trading, lets face it there would be fewer German/French banks here. The UK deregulated market is why they trade here, along with culture, tax, lifestyle, schools, etc.
So there is an inevitable change to be made but the death of the British Financial Sector (and indeed all other industries if some of you fellers are to be believed) is greatly exaggerated.
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
Official Green Belts surround our major cities and former industrial areas. The rest of the country has no Green belt status (that I can find).
Looking at Liverpool and the surrounds, Greenbelt status will hamper development and keep land prices at all time highs. I'm not suggesting housing should be built on meadows and areas where great crested newts live but consideration has to be given to release some land and get it back elsewhere.
It is probably high time we looked at going upwards instead or outwards. Living tower blocks are a thing and proper planning would see flats as a real alternative. We need a sea change of thinking though. A generation has been taught that they need 4 beds, two bathrooms and a large garden with parking for two cars.
Greenbelt land is defined by the local district or unitary council. In a very simplified form the planning systems works like this:-
The District/Unitary Authority draws up a "Local Plan" (note its name changes every time we get a new government). This is meant to define how much extra housing/industrial/commercial is required for the next 15 years or so. This is based on empirical evidence as to expected growth in the area. The District/Unitary authority then allocates areas where this development can happen based on information from areas like, but not exclusively, highways access, flooding, amenities, need for agricultural land and so on. Generally they come up with 4/5 different options.
Then they consult publicly on the proposals for about 3-6 months to get the local opinion (not just householders, but businesses as well). The council then review the responses and make a recommendation as to the preferred option which gets voted on by councillors. Assuming it is approved then a planning inspector then reviews the plan to ensure it is sound (so its not approving just one house to be built over 15 years). This also is done publicly to allow all stakeholders to have their say. At the end of the process you then have areas of land in the council region that have been allocated for commercial/industrial/housing as well as greenbelt which is meant to be protected.
When a planning application comes in then it is assessed against the local plan. If it meets these requirements then it is usually approved. However there is a sticking point which is what causes a lot of problems. If a council is 'failing' to provide enough houses as stated in the local plan then developers can propose housing anywhere and if the application is refused and the developers take it to appeal, then (assuming its not ridiculously located such as in an area of scientific interest) then it generally gets approved because housing numbers takes precedent over almost all other considerations. However from a government perspective a local council is failing if not enough houses are brought forward (i.e. built). What happens is that a council can approve, for example a 1000 households in planning terms in a year, but only 500 are built then the council has failed to provide the required number of households. As such they are vulnerable to appeals on sites outside their local plan (which generally don't have the infrastructure). Hence builders can artificially cause councils to not meet their targets by banking the land, putting down a planning application and then not bring it forward, whilst simultaneously bring forward other sites. Now as it stands if a site isn't commenced within three years the builders have to reapply for planning permission, but the sting in the tail is that they don't have to complete the site - putting in an access road/gate only effectively starts the site and from that point forward they don't have to build anything until they are ready not so they have to reapply for planning permission after 3 years. Hence even reducing the limit to two years doesn't help, it just means they build the access a bit earlier.
As a few other things to note:-
Unless the houses are in a conservation area, there are no restrictions on the style/numbers of houses that can be built with a few limitations (like privacy).
The councils can apply for what is called Section 106 money to provide additional capital infrastructure (the vast majority being for roads and schooling), but the councils still have to prove there is a shortfall; if not the legislation does not allow them to claim anything.
It can be difficult to prove a shortfall when there are lots of small applications because each has to be assessed independently. If the council has spare capacity for 50 children, then two applications within a week of each other needing 40 child spaces both would not need to pay for additional schooling places (the demand is not aggregated). This is why demand can end up outstripping supply and also why councils now prefer Sustainable Urban extensions over smaller developments as it is easier to justify the 'need'.
There are no hidden 'back handed payments' to councils (yes there may be a few corrupt officials, but that's illegal activity) @Sentinel you really have to provide evidence for such claims otherwise it's as bad as Trump saying millions of people voted illegally. The nearest you can come to is the extra payments the government gives to councils for each additional house that is built in its region.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: As I've said many a time I this thread there is more to the City of London than EU passport related trading, lets face it there would be fewer German/French banks here. The UK deregulated market is why they trade here, along with culture, tax, lifestyle, schools, etc.
So there is an inevitable change to be made but the death of the British Financial Sector (and indeed all other industries if some of you fellers are to be believed) is greatly exaggerated.
The Banking sector makes up about 10% of the UKs GVA (gross value added). It is unlikely that all of this is likely to disappear overnight. However once we are out of the EU, it won't all be all civility - the EU countries will actively court the business. Banks that have passporting rights will be able to work more efficiently and cost effectively. That will put more pressure on the banks that remain and you'll have a dwindling of the sector. Even losing 5% of your GVA is a significant issue, you have to recover that somehow whether that is through higher taxes or lower less public services (coming from a point when the NHS is on its knees already). A lot of service businesses grew up because of the wealth of the banking industry. A lot will disappear if its no longer financially viable, alternatively they will put their prices up, but that will further force people to consider moving. This is before we consider that with a weak £ working abroad actually makes more financial sense if it is effectively bringing in 20% extra income - and they are bankers after all...
He should put a subsidy on coal mining and then make industry that needs it i.e steel and metal works or buying coal reserves for power stations. Either that or make US coal more exportable to places which have given up digging it, but still require it. He will at least being doing more than Hillary who basically said 'I will close this industry down and I don't care about your votes'.
This makes no economic sense. If an area has given up digging it up, it is because it is no longer economical to do so. I think you are completely misunderstanding the cost of haulage such bulky material across the globe. This is on top of the fact that it is the least efficient energy producer of the fossil fuels (and hence most polluting) when compared to oil and gas. So for every tonne of coal you move around you can move more oil and more gas. And lets not get started on the environmental impacts. Land where coal is stored is rendered effectively uninhabitable for 10s if not hundreds of years because of the heavy metal pollution, we also have carbon emissions that are the highest of any fossil fuel and as well as sulphur dioxide (hands up those who remember the acid rain issues?).
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 19:47:56
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
He should put a subsidy on coal mining and then make industry that needs it i.e steel and metal works or buying coal reserves for power stations. Either that or make US coal more exportable to places which have given up digging it, but still require it. He will at least being doing more than Hillary who basically said 'I will close this industry down and I don't care about your votes'.
This makes no economic sense. If an area has given up digging it up, it is because it is no longer economical to do so. I think you are completely misunderstanding the cost of haulage such bulky material across the globe. This is on top of the fact that it is the least efficient energy producer of the fossil fuels (and hence most polluting) when compared to oil and gas. So for every tonne of coal you move around you can move more oil and more gas. And lets not get started on the environmental impacts. Land where coal is stored is rendered effectively uninhabitable for 10s if not hundreds of years because of the heavy metal pollution, we also have carbon emissions that are the highest of any fossil fuel and as well as sulphur dioxide (hands up those who remember the acid rain issues?).
Well coal is still a vital product in todays world even if it is not as environmentally friendly. The world still relies on steel to make things, coal is a vital ingredient in the steel process. How do you think we can keep making steel products without coal? Land uninhabitable for 10s if not hundreds of years? That sounds like an excuse not to build a house or live on ground near a disused coal mine to me, I could understand subsidence but 100% pollution? You could equally argue cutting down trees and shipping them from North America to Drax power station as wood chippings is just as if not more so damaging to the environment than digging up something from the ground. It makes total economic sense to keep a resource available for your countries industries as it would be more environmentally damaging to import.
The Banking sector makes up about 10% of the UKs GVA (gross value added). It is unlikely that all of this is likely to disappear overnight. However once we are out of the EU, it won't all be all civility - the EU countries will actively court the business. Banks that have passporting rights will be able to work more efficiently and cost effectively. That will put more pressure on the banks that remain and you'll have a dwindling of the sector. Even losing 5% of your GVA is a significant issue, you have to recover that somehow whether that is through higher taxes or lower less public services (coming from a point when the NHS is on its knees already). A lot of service businesses grew up because of the wealth of the banking industry. A lot will disappear if its no longer financially viable, alternatively they will put their prices up, but that will further force people to consider moving. This is before we consider that with a weak £ working abroad actually makes more financial sense if it is effectively bringing in 20% extra income - and they are bankers after all...
Well even if it is the decline of the corporate banking elite, they will make room for others. A weaker £ is excellent news for exporters and British industry, so its not all bad news for your blessed screw factory Perhaps we will see a full circle in which over the years the UK manufacturing industry gets stronger in the UK and 'made in Britain' means something again. Brexit could be a gold-mine in the waiting for entrepreneurs - we just have to come up with brilliant ideas to exploit it! Any suggestions other than the Greenland option?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 21:33:40
Future War Cultist wrote: John Bercow voted to invade Iraq and he had no problem with the Chinese Premier visiting parliament. He's a disgusting hypocritical bastard of the very worst kind and is no doubt only doing this to get attention.
This is all true but it doesn't automatically make it right for Trump to be invited to address the mother of parliaments.
Bercow's mistake is to have sounded off by himself. He could either get the House to make a resolution, or better, take soundings and quietly inform the PM that the House does not want to listen to Trump.
He should put a subsidy on coal mining and then make industry that needs it i.e steel and metal works or buying coal reserves for power stations. Either that or make US coal more exportable to places which have given up digging it, but still require it. He will at least being doing more than Hillary who basically said 'I will close this industry down and I don't care about your votes'.
This makes no economic sense. If an area has given up digging it up, it is because it is no longer economical to do so. I think you are completely misunderstanding the cost of haulage such bulky material across the globe. This is on top of the fact that it is the least efficient energy producer of the fossil fuels (and hence most polluting) when compared to oil and gas. So for every tonne of coal you move around you can move more oil and more gas. And lets not get started on the environmental impacts. Land where coal is stored is rendered effectively uninhabitable for 10s if not hundreds of years because of the heavy metal pollution, we also have carbon emissions that are the highest of any fossil fuel and as well as sulphur dioxide (hands up those who remember the acid rain issues?).
Well coal is still a vital product in todays world even if it is not as environmentally friendly. The world still relies on steel to make things, coal is a vital ingredient in the steel process. How do you think we can keep making steel products without coal? Land uninhabitable for 10s if not hundreds of years? That sounds like an excuse not to build a house or live on ground near a disused coal mine to me, I could understand subsidence but 100% pollution? You could equally argue cutting down trees and shipping them from North America to Drax power station as wood chippings is just as if not more so damaging to the environment than digging up something from the ground. It makes total economic sense to keep a resource available for your countries industries as it would be more environmentally damaging to import.
The Banking sector makes up about 10% of the UKs GVA (gross value added). It is unlikely that all of this is likely to disappear overnight. However once we are out of the EU, it won't all be all civility - the EU countries will actively court the business. Banks that have passporting rights will be able to work more efficiently and cost effectively. That will put more pressure on the banks that remain and you'll have a dwindling of the sector. Even losing 5% of your GVA is a significant issue, you have to recover that somehow whether that is through higher taxes or lower less public services (coming from a point when the NHS is on its knees already). A lot of service businesses grew up because of the wealth of the banking industry. A lot will disappear if its no longer financially viable, alternatively they will put their prices up, but that will further force people to consider moving. This is before we consider that with a weak £ working abroad actually makes more financial sense if it is effectively bringing in 20% extra income - and they are bankers after all...
Well even if it is the decline of the corporate banking elite, they will make room for others. A weaker £ is excellent news for exporters and British industry, so its not all bad news for your blessed screw factory Perhaps we will see a full circle in which over the years the UK manufacturing industry gets stronger in the UK and 'made in Britain' means something again. Brexit could be a gold-mine in the waiting for entrepreneurs - we just have to come up with brilliant ideas to exploit it! Any suggestions other than the Greenland option?
Neither Germany nor Japan ever had a real problem with exports when they had strong currencies. If you make world-beating stuff, people will buy it whatever it costs. People bought plenty of Rolls-Royce aero engines, Formula One cars and ARM chip designs without the UK having a weak pound. They won't necessarily buy more of them now they are cheaper because there are other factors involved in these major purchasing decisions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/07 23:53:16
Future War Cultist wrote: John Bercow voted to invade Iraq and he had no problem with the Chinese Premier visiting parliament. He's a disgusting hypocritical bastard of the very worst kind and is no doubt only doing this to get attention.
This is all true but it doesn't automatically make it right for Trump to be invited to address the mother of parliaments.
Nobody is saying it does. We're simply calling out Bercow's disgusting hypocrisy and partisan virtue signalling. Its behaviour unbecoming of the Speaker of the House, and he's put the Government in a difficult position.
God, I don't want Trump to visit Parliament, it would be an utter farce and make a mockery of Parliament. Imagine the media gak storm, and the idea of Trump gloating in the House of Commons makes my skin crawl.
Bercow's mistake is to have sounded off by himself. He could either get the House to make a resolution, or better, take soundings and quietly inform the PM that the House does not want to listen to Trump.
Exactly. He's still a hypocrite though for applying double standards.
This should have been a matter for May and the Government to deal with. I would have preferred if he'd privately pressured May to block it herself, so May could make her excuses in private to Trump and prevent this ever reaching the media, becoming a public issue and creating diplomatic fallout (seriously, Trump is an egotist, but we have no choice but to deal with him. Stuns like this will turn him against us).
Whose idea was this anyway? Did the Government actually propose this? Did the Trump administration moot the idea publicly, or officially requested it? Or is it all purely speculation and media hyperbole, which would make the move by the Speaker a pre-mature kneejerk response to something which hasn't actually happened yet?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 00:12:56
Future War Cultist wrote: John Bercow voted to invade Iraq and he had no problem with the Chinese Premier visiting parliament. He's a disgusting hypocritical bastard of the very worst kind and is no doubt only doing this to get attention.
This is all true but it doesn't automatically make it right for Trump to be invited to address the mother of parliaments.
Nobody is saying it does. We're simply calling out Bercow's disgusting hypocrisy and partisan virtue signalling. Its behaviour unbecoming of the Speaker of the House, and he's put the Government in a difficult position...
I would suggest that by inviting Donald Trump for a State visit within a fortnight of his assuming the role of President, May has put herself into a difficult position.
She knew that he is a polarising personality, and that the UK is already divided and unsettled, there was no need to extend this invite so quickly. Had she waited, maybe a year, when things might have settled down, then maybe this wouldn't be an issue.
Howewer, that said, personally, I'm very much in favour of sticking one in the eye of this "new world order" that appears to be on the rise. Anyone who tells Donald Trump to go feth himself, and his boggle eyed toady Farage, is a top bloke in my book. And to coin an expression taken from the Leave campaign, I'll accept a hit to the economy to do so.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
The bill empowering the government to begin the formal process of leaving the European Union is due to reach its final stages in the Commons later.
MPs will debate further amendments to the Brexit bill - allowing Article 50 to be triggered - for up to seven hours before a final vote due at 20:00 GMT.
The vote could cause more Labour rifts - with its MPs told to back the bill.
On Tuesday night, the government saw off attempts to add conditions to the bill as a Tory rebellion was avoided.
The vote means the government has now cleared two days of debate in the Commons without the bill being amended.
The Commons will debate the final set of amendments later, including on key principles for the negotiation process, before the bill goes to its third and final reading in the Commons.
The final debate will then end with a vote by MPs, which could expose further rifts within Labour.
Jeremy Corbyn has ordered his MPs to support the government's bill, whether his party's amendments are accepted or not, as he believes it would be undemocratic to ignore the will of the people, as expressed in last June's EU referendum.
However, shadow business secretary Clive Lewis has vowed to oppose the bill unless Labour amendments are passed in the Commons.
Once the bill passes the Commons, it will be debated in the House of Lords after it returns from recess on 20 February.
Minister David Jones said the MPs would have a choice between a deal or no deal
On Tuesday, MPs rejected a bid by Labour's Chris Leslie to force the government to consult Parliament on the deal struck with the EU before it is finalised.
It came after ministers pledged that a "meaningful" vote would be offered.
Labour and some Tories had pushed for MPs to have a decisive say on the final terms, but the 326 to 293 vote meant the bill remained unchanged.
Seven Conservatives rebelled, while six Labour MPs voted with the government.
Several other attempts to amend the legislation - which if passed will authorise the prime minister to formally begin Brexit negotiations under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - were also rejected during more than seven hours of debate.
'A meaningful vote'
Theresa May has already promised Parliament will get a say on the final deal, but critics, including some Conservatives, said they wanted more than the "take it or leave it" vote being offered.
Any possibility of a major Conservative rebellion appeared to be halted by comments from Brexit Minister David Jones.
Mr Jones said MPs would get a say on the final draft Brexit agreement before it was voted upon by the European Parliament.
"This will be a meaningful vote," he told MPs.
"It will be the choice of leaving the EU with a negotiated deal or not."
Downing Street played down claims the government's position had changed.
But Labour's front bench claimed the move as a "significant victory" in response to its repeated demands for a "meaningful" vote at the end of the two-year negotiation process.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 08:10:08
That is a bit of a peek under your hood so to speak, I can see where your ideas about Brexit have come from. A fertile, and slightly off the wall imagination.
If you say so, I tend to have an opinion on most things, because they are either black or white to me. Very rarely do I get stuck in a grey area on a topic where I can't decide what to think. I am a creative person and general optimist which is a lot better than being a 'gloomy moaner' that appears to often with people...
I would suggest, and this by no means should be taken as an insult, that if you think there are no grey areas in life, you simply do not know enough about, or have failed to understand, the issues.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Future War Cultist wrote: John Bercow voted to invade Iraq and he had no problem with the Chinese Premier visiting parliament. He's a disgusting hypocritical bastard of the very worst kind and is no doubt only doing this to get attention.
This is all true but it doesn't automatically make it right for Trump to be invited to address the mother of parliaments.
Nobody is saying it does. We're simply calling out Bercow's disgusting hypocrisy and partisan virtue signalling. Its behaviour unbecoming of the Speaker of the House, and he's put the Government in a difficult position.
God, I don't want Trump to visit Parliament, it would be an utter farce and make a mockery of Parliament. Imagine the media gak storm, and the idea of Trump gloating in the House of Commons makes my skin crawl.
Bercow's mistake is to have sounded off by himself. He could either get the House to make a resolution, or better, take soundings and quietly inform the PM that the House does not want to listen to Trump.
Exactly. He's still a hypocrite though for applying double standards.
This should have been a matter for May and the Government to deal with. I would have preferred if he'd privately pressured May to block it herself, so May could make her excuses in private to Trump and prevent this ever reaching the media, becoming a public issue and creating diplomatic fallout (seriously, Trump is an egotist, but we have no choice but to deal with him. Stuns like this will turn him against us).
Whose idea was this anyway? Did the Government actually propose this? Did the Trump administration moot the idea publicly, or officially requested it? Or is it all purely speculation and media hyperbole, which would make the move by the Speaker a pre-mature kneejerk response to something which hasn't actually happened yet?
Who addresses Parliament is a matter for the House, not for the Government. So is the selection of the Speaker.
Who addresses Parliament is a matter for the House, not for the Government. So is the selection of the Speaker.
Exactly; the Speaker is the one who decides who can/can't speak in the House. He can still speak elsewhere if anyone responsible for the other venues allows him to. It all seems to be a moot point anyway as Trump doesn't seem to be interested in speaking to the Lords/Commons, and wants to spend his time being treated like royalty with members of the royal family.
Plus, the Speakers comments were in response to an early day motion about the prospect of Trump speaking, and he reassured people that he has no intention of letting trump speak, along with some justification. I don't think it was that political.
Who addresses Parliament is a matter for the House, not for the Government. So is the selection of the Speaker.
Exactly; the Speaker is the one who decides who can/can't speak in the House. He can still speak elsewhere if anyone responsible for the other venues allows him to. It all seems to be a moot point anyway as Trump doesn't seem to be interested in speaking to the Lords/Commons, and wants to spend his time being treated like royalty with members of the royal family.
Plus, the Speakers comments were in response to an early day motion about the prospect of Trump speaking, and he reassured people that he has no intention of letting trump speak, along with some justification. I don't think it was that political.
That is true, I doubt Trump would want to speak to the Commons because of the backlash, well I imagine quite a few would boycott it for an extra day of paid no work. I could see him wanting to meet the Royals and have private meetings with Theresa May and the cabinet over future deals etc. Whose to stop Trump making a public appearance in London where he can say what he likes anyway, apart from mindless protesters. I doubt Trump would want to meet The Labour Party and friends anyway.
Personally the current speaker is a slimy devil, he practically bent over backwards when the Chinese dictator was here! I believe there should be a commons vote for when controversial heads of state visit. That way the Speakers integrity as a neutral is maintained and proper democracy on the issue provided. If say the Speaker said Obama wasn't allowed in the commons there would have been a backlash of 'discrimination' and could have been the chop for him. Trump's superficial ban that lasted a few days and isn't a Muslim Ban, because it banned all faiths of the countries involved suddenly makes him the worst leader in the world in public opinion. Yet there is a huge list of worse leaders who are racist and are making the lives of certain peoples miserable who get away with it.
Bercow did May a massive favour, practically guarantees a HoL place as/when he steps down.
You'll note it's all anonymous Govt. spokesmen doing the, apparent, complaining -- plus a few tory press faves earning their regular top up payments.
I reckon she knew/encouraged him even.
Gets her/the Govt. out of an awkward spot very well.
May doesn't want to PO Trump/the USA , vast swathes of the electorate -- across all parties -- loathe Trump and don't want him here let alone lecturing us about..well... anything. Given his ego how well do you think he'd take it when 40-50% of the HoC either blank him, don;'t turn up or boo him ?
Twitter would melt down.
Same time we're about to engage with the Eu/ROTW many of whom loathe Trump/his policies and it would do us no favours to be seen -- once again -- as America's artificial limb.
Much better to be able to nod knowingly and coo along about how terrible he is.
.. so, conveniently, it's all taken off of the table anyway.
..what a stroke of luck eh ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 09:46:14
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I think some people are losing sight of the fact that Obama was and is much more popular in the UK than Trump for several good reasons, not out of some kind of weird ideas about discrimination or SIW-inspired free speech banning or whatever.
Obama is intelligent, well-educated, thoughtful, eloquent, charismatic, gracious, handsome, with a lovely family to whom he is devoted, and a long record of public service. He is a stone mensch, a guy anyone would be happy and proud to have a pint or a G&T with.
The bill empowering the government to begin the formal process of leaving the European Union is due to reach its final stages in the Commons later.
MPs will debate further amendments to the Brexit bill - allowing Article 50 to be triggered - for up to seven hours before a final vote due at 20:00 GMT.
The vote could cause more Labour rifts - with its MPs told to back the bill.
On Tuesday night, the government saw off attempts to add conditions to the bill as a Tory rebellion was avoided.
The vote means the government has now cleared two days of debate in the Commons without the bill being amended.
The Commons will debate the final set of amendments later, including on key principles for the negotiation process, before the bill goes to its third and final reading in the Commons.
The final debate will then end with a vote by MPs, which could expose further rifts within Labour.
Jeremy Corbyn has ordered his MPs to support the government's bill, whether his party's amendments are accepted or not, as he believes it would be undemocratic to ignore the will of the people, as expressed in last June's EU referendum.
However, shadow business secretary Clive Lewis has vowed to oppose the bill unless Labour amendments are passed in the Commons.
Once the bill passes the Commons, it will be debated in the House of Lords after it returns from recess on 20 February.
Minister David Jones said the MPs would have a choice between a deal or no deal
On Tuesday, MPs rejected a bid by Labour's Chris Leslie to force the government to consult Parliament on the deal struck with the EU before it is finalised.
It came after ministers pledged that a "meaningful" vote would be offered.
Labour and some Tories had pushed for MPs to have a decisive say on the final terms, but the 326 to 293 vote meant the bill remained unchanged.
Seven Conservatives rebelled, while six Labour MPs voted with the government.
Several other attempts to amend the legislation - which if passed will authorise the prime minister to formally begin Brexit negotiations under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - were also rejected during more than seven hours of debate.
'A meaningful vote'
Theresa May has already promised Parliament will get a say on the final deal, but critics, including some Conservatives, said they wanted more than the "take it or leave it" vote being offered.
Any possibility of a major Conservative rebellion appeared to be halted by comments from Brexit Minister David Jones.
Mr Jones said MPs would get a say on the final draft Brexit agreement before it was voted upon by the European Parliament.
"This will be a meaningful vote," he told MPs.
"It will be the choice of leaving the EU with a negotiated deal or not."
Downing Street played down claims the government's position had changed.
But Labour's front bench claimed the move as a "significant victory" in response to its repeated demands for a "meaningful" vote at the end of the two-year negotiation process.
I will be following the Commons debate on this. It's been quite interesting these past few days, and I'd urge my fellow dakka members to do the same if they have time to spare.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 11:08:38
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
He's cropped up before -- in the ref. for example and has weaved in and out of political debate -- in his own inimical way -- in the UK for a few years.
1.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2.
a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
the targets here being the way that the press -- all the way from the Daily Brexpress to ..err.. whatever's left of the Grauniad ... Morning Star still published ? -- frequently hold up the most bizarre or outlandish example of something -- for example a dancing priest who protests at various events across the land -- and hold this up as an example of EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG in the country.
When, clearly, the subject is really nothing to do with the matter at hand.
The Mail in particular excels at this type of histrionics.
One had assumed, this being an internet board that the majority of the people reading would be fairly media aware.
And may even enjoy a lighter moment between the arguing, with something we can all laugh at.
Clearly I over estimated here.
Back to watching the pro Brexit people come up with more and more excuses it is then.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
This is no time for fun and games, reds8n - it's battle stattions in the House of Commons.
Amendments are getting machine gunned left, right, and centre. They'll be calling it the Wednesday night massacre.
Farron's call for a second referendum on the Brexit deal was crushed by a majority of 307 votes!
Gibraltar has been told to go and swivel on a stick, and it looks like Northern Ireland's concerns over the Good Friday agreement will end up in the Thames...
I was under the impression that Labour had a cunning plan to get some amendments passed in order to pretend to be an 'opposition,' but their tactics are feeble and woeful.
Still, on the plus side, Diane Abott is there this time, for all it's worth...
The SNP are the only party fighting a rearguard action against this...
I'm tempted to take a bet with any dakka memmber on any amendment passing tonight.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Well coal is still a vital product in todays world even if it is not as environmentally friendly. The world still relies on steel to make things, coal is a vital ingredient in the steel process. How do you think we can keep making steel products without coal?
This is not the argument. Yes coal is needed for the steel industry, however if coal mines shut down in an area then it is economically not viable because other areas/countries are doing it cheaper and more effective. A tonne of coal is not actually that much and shipping tens of thousands of tonnes a third of the way across the world is not viable economically if it is not viable to extract it locally. The efficient processes/more cost effective/more profitable are located where there are easy to access supplies both of the iron ore and the coal. Anywhere else and the companies will struggle to compete. This is why the UK steel industry is effectively doomed in the long term. We don't extract iron ore of sufficient quality to compete therefore we have to ship it in. It is vastly more cost effective to ship 1000 tonnes of steel to the customer than it is to import 2000 tonnes of raw material and a 1000 tonnes of steel to the customer. It's 'basic' economics.
Land uninhabitable for 10s if not hundreds of years? That sounds like an excuse not to build a house or live on ground near a disused coal mine to me, I could understand subsidence but 100% pollution? You could equally argue cutting down trees and shipping them from North America to Drax power station as wood chippings is just as if not more so damaging to the environment than digging up something from the ground. It makes total economic sense to keep a resource available for your countries industries as it would be more environmentally damaging to import.
It doesn't take much research to see that coal includes a lot of nasty heavy elements in it including Lead, Arsenic and Mercury. Wherever you stockpile the coal or the ash once used these metals leach into the ground. You can't grow food crops (biofuel crops are fine) or place housing on such land because they both can be used to grow food products (or little kids eating worms etc) and the plants draw up these heavy metals into the plant. When we eat the food the heavy metals aren't ejected very easily so they build up in time with all the health issues that can bring. As it stands the UK way of dealing with such land is covering it with dirty compost and letting them settle into wildlife havens, golf courses or biofuel crops because this prevents the heavy metals getting into the food stream. We don't actually know how long it takes the heavy metals to dissipate though (longer than a few 10's of years) but it could be hundreds before levels fall back to 'safe, background' values.
Wood chippings can be viable if they are sourced from tress that are replanted at the same rate they are removed after considering haulage environmental impacts. However more sustainable methods are wind farms, solar panels and geothermal energy (which combined can be carbon neutral in the long term) - especially if you combine this with householders also providing their own local energy requirements (so ground source heat pumps powered by solar panels etc).
Well even if it is the decline of the corporate banking elite, they will make room for others. A weaker £ is excellent news for exporters and British industry, so its not all bad news for your blessed screw factory Perhaps we will see a full circle in which over the years the UK manufacturing industry gets stronger in the UK and 'made in Britain' means something again. Brexit could be a gold-mine in the waiting for entrepreneurs - we just have to come up with brilliant ideas to exploit it! Any suggestions other than the Greenland option?
If they were such brilliant ideas, why aren't they already here. The EU does not hold back these ideas...This is just Brexit 'magic' thinking without any real concept of reality. Why are we not already bigger than Germany, a country under the same EU rules if there all these brilliant entrepreneurs out there? Are they all hiding as bankers (which relatively is a very small proportion of the UK population)? That we can magically invent a load more industries out of thin air is farcical.
Farron's call for a second referendum on the Brexit deal was crushed by a majority of 307 votes!
Gibraltar has been told to go and swivel on a stick, and it looks like Northern Ireland's concerns over the Good Friday agreement will end up in the Thames...
It's not a surprise that no amendments are being accepted. The Tories are well aware of how easily cracks could start showing if they started becoming divided even if they are voting against their principles. In the end the vast majority of them are more interested in protecting the party than the country (and shock horror they wouldn't want to let the populace have a democratic say on the issue before it is implemented)!
Effectively the whole issue is being led by bigotry and immigration and there doesn't seem to be any desire to tackle this.
What will be more interesting is the local elections. If LDs can get both Labour (who are made up of 70% pro-EU people) and Tory (even if it is a protest vote) pro-EU voters to swing behind them and they both start losing Council seats left right and centre then that will start cause rifts as they start worrying about their own seats in 2020...and we can't forget that for a proportion of Brexit voters don't usually vote so those that do are slightly more pro-EU. That could generate some interesting dynamics as well.
And if all else fails, 10 years there will be enough dead, uneducated old farts that the country will become decidedly pro-EU again. Of course it might likely be just be England/Wales by that point and a United Kingdom might be nothing more than a joke.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:27:55
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Or perhaps in ten years time the EU will be long dead. And we'll be thankful that we got out of it before the gak hit the fan and all of its little present day cheerleaders will deny having ever supported it.
But we're both speculating.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:42:23
Why would it be dead? It would take a huge wave of nasty populist nationalism right across Europe to manage that and to be frank that isn't going to happen. Even Le Penn doesn't want to bring France out of the EU....
I can definitely see whatever is left of the UK rejoining the EU in 30-40 years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:45:53
Perhaps we will see a full circle in which over the years the 
Any suggestions other than the Greenland option?
