The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[chrisp65]

I was going to go back to this morning’s post and quote from the ONS site where I got my figure.

But I got as far as ON and the auto fill suggested one nation under a groove, and I got distracted.

For the better too, I might add. 

[tonyh29]

50 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sort of related, but of no modern relevance, when the Independent Newspaper originally launched back in the 80s, one of it's stances was as per the tweet - No unattributed "sources say". stories, no anonymous briefing stories at all. Another was no Royal family coverage. It was all the better for it. Now, the media is fuller than ever of all kinds of utter tripe planted by various parties for entirely their  own narrow interests and not actually News (or true) at all.

 

but , don't people spread the tripe by retweeting ( or copying it on football forums ) ..

for example , VT was happy enough to share tweets of a punch up and an arrest at Tory conference , neither of which appear to  be true  ( he says without entire validation , but  best I can find is that it was verbals only and the MP wasn't even spoken to by police )  , based on sources that weren't even remotely validated  ...

I don't think anyone was really looking for the truth or a genuine source in that particular example

[desensitized43]

46 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I honestly think it's one of the worst scourges of our politics. This shit LK is putting out comes on top of that FT article earlier in the week in which a 'number 10 source' was allowed to anonymously fantasise about the lynching of opposition MP's. It's doing real damage to our politics, and journalists need to wake up and get a grip. 

Stories/rumours have always been planted in the media throughout history.

The difference here is the ease with which it's done and the speed at which that misinformation proliferates.

Unfortunately, journalists are under pressure to justify their positions and in this day and age if you've got some information it's better to post and be wrong (in the knowledge you can always just post a "I'm now hearing..." correction) than appear to be a journalist that's getting no information.

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

but , don't people spread the tripe by retweeting ( or copying it on football forums ) ..

for example , VT was happy enough to share tweets of a punch up and an arrest at Tory conference

Firstly, yes, social media, IMO is one of the major factors in the sh*tstorm of fake news, false stories and the like that are affecting the country (and others) generally. Both because of 'normal' people falling for, or starting stuff and more worryingly because of organised disinformation and lie spreading by nations, by anonymous lobbyists and so on.

On VT, I've not noticed it to any extent, and not seen what you say about a "punch up and arrest", but assuming you're accurate, then yes, it would be part of the problem.

[HanoiVillan]

19 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Stories/rumours have always been planted in the media throughout history.

The difference here is the ease with which it's done and the speed at which that misinformation proliferates.

Unfortunately, journalists are under pressure to justify their positions and in this day and age if you've got some information it's better to post and be wrong (in the knowledge you can always just post a "I'm now hearing..." correction) than appear to be a journalist that's getting no information.

All of what you say there is true. but I don't think that means we give up in expecting (and demanding) better. 

[bickster]

46 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

but , don't people spread the tripe by retweeting ( or copying it on football forums ) ..

for example , VT was happy enough to share tweets of a punch up and an arrest at Tory conference , neither of which appear to  be true  ( he says without entire validation , but  best I can find is that it was verbals only and the MP wasn't even spoken to by police )  , based on sources that weren't even remotely validated  ...

I don't think anyone was really looking for the truth or a genuine source in that particular example

So you're aying that the treasurer of the 1922 committtee, didn't try to get an uncredited person into a meeting, abuse the security staff when his unacredited friend wasn't allowed in, and wasn't banned from the remainder oif the conference?

You also appear to be saing that the Police and paramedics weren't involved yet a Police spokesman made a statement to the press and "Conservative Party Spokesman" made a statement about said whopper being asked to leave the conference?
This didn't happen?

[tonyh29]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

So you're aying that the treasurer of the 1922 committtee, didn't try to get an uncredited person into a meeting, abuse the security staff when his unacredited friend wasn't allowed in, and wasn't banned from the remainder oif the conference?

You also appear to be saing that the Police and paramedics weren't involved yet a Police spokesman made a statement to the press and "Conservative Party Spokesman" made a statement about said whopper being asked to leave the conference?
This didn't happen?

No that's not what i said , not really remotely close  , I said the punch up and the arrest weren't true   ... I guess reading it back it could be viewed as me saying the whole episode wasn't true but that wasn't the intent and i did clarify by saying " best I can find is that it was verbals only and the MP wasn't even spoken to by police "

They uncredited person into a meeting i wasn't contesting that bit is verified as true ( though I've seen reports of it being his wife , fiancé or girlfriend so I'm not sure which one she was , had it been Johnson possibly all 3  )  the police and paramedics were there we saw photos but Clifton brown has said he wasn't' even spoken to by the police and I can't find anything to confirm he was actually arrested ,  everything seems to be quoting the original twitter sources and not offering any new actual evidence   ....

in the context of the discussion about sources and people spreading tripe /rumours  I thought it was a reasonable example

 

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

No that's not what i said , not really remotely close  , I said the punch up and the arrest weren't true   ... I guess reading it back it could be viewed as me saying the whole episode wasn't true but that wasn't the intent and i did clarify by saying " best I can find is that it was verbals only and the MP wasn't even spoken to by police "

They uncredited person into a meeting i wasn't contesting that bit is verified as true ( though I've seen reports of it being his wife , fiancé or girlfriend so I'm not sure which one she was , had it been Johnson possibly all 3  )  the police and paramedics were there we saw photos but Clifton brown has said he wasn't' even spoken to by the police and I can't find anything to confirm he was actually arrested ,  everything seems to be quoting the original twitter sources and not offering any new actual evidence   ....

in the context of the discussion about sources and people spreading tripe /rumours  I thought it was a reasonable example

 

GIven the paramedics were called, I'd suggest something beyond verbals happened. So that leaves us with arrest, well arrest is a technical legal term, so maybe he wasn't actually arrested

[tonyh29]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

GIven the paramedics were called, I'd suggest something beyond verbals happened. So that leaves us with arrest, well arrest is a technical legal term, so maybe he wasn't actually arrested

tbh with it being a Tory conference and an unknown incident I assumed the paramedics and police was just a default response  ..maybe in 19 years time someone will come forward to say he was punched on the nose but for now nobody is saying a lot

[peterms]

A thread from Irish border territory with some views on Johnson's approach.

 

[ml1dch]

11 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

 I didn’t mention net contributions that wasn’t me arguing that 

The web  refers to money Norway gets back but doesn’t specifically refer to it as a rebate so your point there is valid 

It’s not voting rights as such but doesnt  the EEA Joint Committee have the right to veto a rule if they wish ?  

Norway via the EEA also have a seat at various international bodies where they can directly input into legislations that the EU often adopt  , true , not voting rights but still an opportunity to influence them , tbf I don’t know how great that influence is .

It's something (like most points which are angrily shouted from partisan positions) which has a lot more nuance than it's often afforded.

It's a pretty solid statement of fact that Norway follows rules that are put in place by the EU. And there is no direct representation to decide whether they should or not.

So is that automatically a democratic aberration, or is the more pertinent question "how then, do those rules get made?".

Norway cares about two things (with apologies for the generalisation), fish and energy. The EU fisheries committee don't really know much about fish. Nigel Farage was a member (and I think it's chairman) for several years. So where are they going to learn what they need to know?

Most global food standards are established at UN level, through the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, and specifically via a body called Codex Allimentarius. There are tweaks here and there across countries and trading blocks, but broadly speaking that's where the experts sit and that is where your average MEP gets his/her information and follows the advice when making rules and voting on law.

So the bit of that which Norway cares about? All handled by the Fish and Fishery Products Committee. Handy, given that it's hosted by Norway. And led (or it was until recently) by Bjorn Knudtsen. A Norwegian, obviously.

So do they follow the rules? Yes. Are they worried about the rules acting unfavourably? Probably not so much.

Edited October 4, 2019 by ml1dch

[peterms]

 

[chrisp65]

Yeah, they’ll soon have to drop that attitude once Priti uses economic leverage on them.

[HanoiVillan]

41 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Yeah, they’ll soon have to drop that attitude once Priti uses economic leverage on them.

Just wait till she turns that smirk westwards. The Irish will be putty in her hands. 

[Mic09]

I am not British myself so I am interested to hear from UK or Irish based fans. This is a topic that I need to read into more as my knowledge is limited. Any reading material and opinions would be appreciated.

Why is a hard border such a major issue for the Irish? Some people talk about it as if it was re-igniting the war. Does it have to be like that?

I understand that it would go against the good friday agreement, however are some people going overboard with how fragile the situation is in Ireland right now and how badly a border might affect it? Isn't a border simply driving up in the car, getting your passport checked and carrying on? 

[bickster]

13 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I am not British myself so I am interested to hear from UK or Irish based fans. This is a topic that I need to read into more as my knowledge is limited. Any reading material and opinions would be appreciated.

Why is a hard border such a major issue for the Irish? Some people talk about it as if it was re-igniting the war. Does it have to be like that?

I understand that it would go against the good friday agreement, however are some people going overboard with how fragile the situation is in Ireland right now and how badly a border might affect it? Isn't a border simply driving up in the car, getting your passport checked and carrying on? 

No they aren't going overboard, there are bombs going off again already in NI this will only get worse with a hard border. The border would soon turn into much more than that, the border could be entirely symbolic and it would still create a problem an actual border would make that situation much much worse

There should be no passport checking, technically you do not need a passport to travel between the RI and UK, you never have

The peace holds because the Irish can be Irish as soon as the border goes up, they can't be, this will start the troubles again

[Chindie]

26 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I am not British myself so I am interested to hear from UK or Irish based fans. This is a topic that I need to read into more as my knowledge is limited. Any reading material and opinions would be appreciated.

Why is a hard border such a major issue for the Irish? Some people talk about it as if it was re-igniting the war. Does it have to be like that?

I understand that it would go against the good friday agreement, however are some people going overboard with how fragile the situation is in Ireland right now and how badly a border might affect it? Isn't a border simply driving up in the car, getting your passport checked and carrying on? 

Ireland has a very fractious history, to say the least, in its recent memory. In the lifetimes of a lot of the people on this forum, that history has seen on either side tragedy and horror and massacre. I'm one of the younger members of the forum and even I can recall seeing news from Belfast with Land Rovers on fire and the army on the ground, and news reports from all over the place of high streets behind police cordons with wreckage everywhere.

Those memories are barely hidden. There are people in Ireland who will recall going through checkpoints, army checkpoints, where there was the distinct implication that they were a threat, they were the enemy and they were one mistake from a world of trouble. There are also people that can remember people from their neighbourhood, their family, disappearing and never being heard of again.

The Good Friday Agreement helped begin the process of moving on from those memories. It pulled down the barriers between between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and effectively makes Northern Ireland a special case where it's people can be Irish or British as they please and erases as far as possible the obvious divisions between those 2 things.

Introducing a border will exacerbate that again. It already is with just the threat of the Good Friday Agreement being in question. The barely hidden tensions will boil again, and soon enough that will escalate and escalate.

[snowychap]

On 04/10/2019 at 12:28, tonyh29 said:

any counter argument has to spell out exact detail whilst factoring in supply chains and rules of origin

Yawn.

Any discussion about any trading arrangements has to factor in everything that may make a difference - especially if they involve (adverse) changes to current trading arrangements.

The point about Rules of Origin are, according to the experts who talk about trade, free trade agreements, &c. all the time is that these things are very much overlooked when people talk about free trade agreements and reducing tariffs (goods still need to qualify for reduced tariffs agreed by FTAs because of the Rules of Origin always contained within them).

[StefanAVFC]

3 hours ago, Mic09 said:

I am not British myself so I am interested to hear from UK or Irish based fans. This is a topic that I need to read into more as my knowledge is limited. Any reading material and opinions would be appreciated.

Why is a hard border such a major issue for the Irish? Some people talk about it as if it was re-igniting the war. Does it have to be like that?

I understand that it would go against the good friday agreement, however are some people going overboard with how fragile the situation is in Ireland right now and how badly a border might affect it? Isn't a border simply driving up in the car, getting your passport checked and carrying on? 

*Speaking purely on a passport level here

*British people identify as Irish and vice versa.

[snowychap]