And once the bad actor knows where the range is, following the Ford Mondeo from there on its way home via the M6, and waylaying it, is not really that hard.
Centralised security and controlled transport ought to be the order of the day if these things are allowed. And if that puts some variants of a hobby out of business, so be it. Find something cheaper and less dangerous with which to prove how well you can accurately point a thing at another thing. Why the need to point such a large, dangerous thing? To some, it IS verging on the ammosexual.
Or perhaps legislate such that different parts of these machines must be stored at different locations such that they only come together and become usable under licensed supervision at designated and licensed places. Use technology to ensure that the separated parts can only be used together with each other and not with parts from a different one. I’m just thinking out loud here and have no idea as to what is possible having never even seen one of these things, but there must be better solutions than allowing them to be driven around at will.
I get that @Zardoz1 is a responsible gun owner as are no doubt the vast majority. But a line has to be drawn somewhere and personally I think @bobtato makes more sense. No doubt there are people who would like to see it legal to point even bigger, badder, more dangerous things at things in the name of ‘hobby’ but we’ve decided not. Your preferences are not the only factor. Some hobbies are simply and rightly not allowed, even if they were in the past. Find another way to prove how well you can point something at something without leaving the world at greater risk that these things will be pointed and fired at some things we’d rather they weren’t.
I am really in two minds about the idea of another referendum. If the result were “let’s stay in the EU”, that is probably the best outcome anyone can hope for – you can imagine various ugly political consequences, but nothing worse than the current outlook.
But a referendum is still a shitty way to do things, and I’m disturbed by many people’s blithe assumption that simply holding a referendum is the same as getting the right result. That is, after all, the exact thinking that created this problem in the first place.
The polling currently looks good, but not decisively so. And more than 1.2 million old people have died since the last one, which in itself changes the picture. But changes in turnout could swing it either way, and a lot would depend on the exact question asked.
Unless “stay in the EU” was one of the options, it would be worse than pointless. But then I don’t see how it could possibly happen under the current government. Although, if Theresa May got Labour and the SNP to back that, it could happen, and it could even make her political career less doomed. In fact that might be one reason Labour are lukewarm about it.
The rumour is HRM is rather in the remain camp - she has been trolling the government with her “EU” hat on more than one occasion - including the state opening of parliament.
This. And not just in UK. If we do decide to stay by some miracle, the rest of the EU might have to return to status quo ante rather than extract concessions. To use this to ‘punish’ UK would not go down well with some members. Indeed, there is a case to be made that us staying, after all this shit, might be a catalyst for the EU to change rather more than it has hitherto ever shown any propensity to.
I am a remainer. Passionately so. I know exactly what motivates the ERG swivel-eyed UKIP style remainers. It is deregulation (to fuck the powerless and accrue more wealth to the globally powerful) and nationalism/racism. (See today’s Guardian lead story.) Some leavers and some remainers (myself included) dislike many aspects of the EU. Its corruption. Its lack of transparency. Its Franco-German bias. The CAP and fisheries policies. There is a lot to reform. And we do not like the ‘ever-closer union’ dog whistle for an ultimate single state ‘political union’ (why the ‘take back control’ tag line worked so well on so many levels).
My faint hope is for a second referendum that keeps us in, and then triggers deep introspection and ongoing reform of the EU. If we just stay and the EU does nothing to reform, we will not be the last to vote to leave and I dare say Hungary and Poland might manage to rig a vote in a few years that would take them out, if their own fuckwits thought they could get away with it. And if we just stay and nothing else changes, there will be UK civil unrest. For a start the UK govt should openly and loudly declare it will do what it was always allowed to (and others do) and restrict free movement from new members, all within the current rules. That New Labour did not do this is one of the root causes of the mess we are now in.
But I fear we are leaving one way or another and all our lives will be worse as a result. Half the UK cut off its nose to spite all our faces, based on the lie that noselessness will be the new fashion any day now. Fuckwits.
If half of the UK has cut off their nose then that’s their business. What I object to is that they are trying to cut off our noses too, when we are very passionate about keeping them on our faces. That’s why I am very serious about the idea of splitting away from the UK.
If they get to leave the EU on a slight majority on a non binding vote then why can’t remain areas leave the UK so we can stay in? It’s only fair.
Well, the UK’s objection to that has only ever been that it excludes us from our ‘rightful’ importance. It’s not like we actually give a fuck about any of the other EU states when we disagree with France or Germany about something.
Then we really can’t be in the European Union.
Then we will see a real intensification of xenophobia.
That would have been nice. Except it would have caused exactly those people who want to leave to have hissy fits.
One of the main problems with Britain’s membership of the EU is that the politicians (probably rightly) believe that the electorate wants foreigners regulated in ways that they would not put up with themselves.
And you can’t have that kind of two-tier system under the EU - it’s kind of the whole point.
So if we wanted to impose these things on EU citizens (which we absolutely could have done), we’d have had to do them to our own citizens as well.
New Labour did take some baby steps in that direction with the idea of introducing ID cards. That went down well.
I know the Queen normally isn’t political but I’m surprised that for such a serious issue she didnt give some kind of fireside chat. Say that she respects democracy but hopes they’ll take her years of experience under consideration when voting.
I think you misunderstand. EU’s own rules allow tighter restrictions on free movement. Other EU states apply them to people from other EU states. New Labour decided not to.
Just for clarity (as I seem to have missed it) where is “our” in your post?
And it is not just “their” business. My house is a 100% remain area but I cannot leave the UK. I guess that’s not ‘fair’ either. No doubt many houses in your remain area are leave areas, too.
I talked to someone who was counting the votes in my ward after the referendum. They literally had to do a search of the building to prove that there weren’t any lost or hidden votes because there were so few leave votes that the brexiters couldn’t believe it. It was a similar percentage to the Gibraltar vote.
But right now I am looking at a situation that I may not survive. Between necessary medication, being an internationalist libertarian-socialist trans woman who refuses to swear allegiance to ultranationalists and their bootlickers, and housesharing with a Jewish woman, I am worrying about my future and that of a lot of the people I know. The woman I live with is attempting to get a German passport, because her grandparents escaped Nazi Germany, but I don’t have that option. I am getting desperate and attempting to start a UK secession movement is a symptom of that. I don’t feel I am part of the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland any more and the best I can offer is a desire to keep our side of the border open to anyone who wants to leave Brexit Britain.
Ah. And I thought I had things that scared me about Brexit (critical medication also being one of them). Good luck, and fingers crossed for something (anything?) other than the current omnishambles train wreck.
She never has and never will. She takes the role extremely seriously, wth all the advantages and disadvantages that brings. Even Charles has had to make clear recently that once he is the monarch he will have to behave differently ref expressing his private opinions publicly. So I am not in the least surprised she has not.
Sure but as even you acknowledge the UK has far more to lose. And as it stands the EU is much more empowered to mitigate damage on member states than the UK is. And there’s.
Calling off Brexit with no concessions from the UK is getting a better deal by leaving. Just like any “soft Brexit” format. It’s not just ecconomic concerns here Brexit risks seriously political destabilization in Europe. Otherwise the best bet would be to simply call it off.
As it stands the best outcome for the UK (based on effects rather than politics) is calling it off and keeping things on the same footing. But on the EU that still weekens them and the best outcome is one where there is no Brexit and the UK winds up more closely tied, or otherwise makes some concessions.
Baring that, and the UK doesn’t seem to brv interested in even a let’s call the whole thing off situation, the best path for the EU is probably harshness. There’s little reason to deliberately damage the UK. But this is a less of a situation where the UK sees what it can get. Than one where the EU internally negotiates the best way to mitigate for member states and the UK gets what it it gets. And that’s up to andbincluding supporting the breakup of the UK if that’s on the table.
That was more of an extreme example of something that would clearly piss off most of the British.
I was under the impression that polling since has pointed to popular support for calling it off. The vote was close to begin with. And there were turnout issues on the stay side since it was purportedly non binding, and noone though “leave” would be the result. And a lot of regret and reversal from leave voters. Many of them having essentially logged protest votes, and others being pissed at how much of the pro-leave campaign was based on out and out lies.
Otherwise why even discuss another referendum?
I genuinely think the hold up on that front is less the potential fall out of calling of Brexit. Than the potential reaction to what it would take to call off Brexit. The leave group already seems pretty unhappy with how this is going, give up too much to get back in. And you potentially piss a broader group off and end up bolstering the anti-EU side.
Admittedly is a bad gloss. That comment was long enough as it was because insomnia.
But bringing the UK into the EU was important in stabilizing the EU and turning it into what it is today. Rather than a weird trade arrangement regularly at risk of collapse. Because of the size of the UK’s ecconomy relative to other members and the whole. So they were able to extract concessions.
That’s not the case anymore. Basically I don’t think anyone in in Europe proper needs to think the UK is going to get through this without consequences.
The EU is certainly saying they’ll entertain it. But as I understand it as the rules and their interpretation currently stand it’s not reversible. I don’t see the EU just changing that or endorsing a different read without getting something out of it. And the UK doesn’t exactly have a strong position to force a change on its own. The UK just doesn’t have the power to act unilaterally, they have to convince The EU.
And even if that were the better political move for the EU. It seems like it would be fairly unpopular among the European population. Nearly everyone I know over there either wants to see the UK out and out punished. Or was some sort of gain on the EU’s part. Some consequences for leaving or the attempt. Any format for calling it off seems deeply unpopular across Europe. The UK is gonna end up eating some shit on this one way or the other.
What’s the point in being an absolute ruler if you have less rights than a peasant? I thought the rule was they don’t force things, they should be able to comment if it’s nonbinding
Like our constitution, it is an unwritten rule. Call that a norm if you like, but she has been at it for 70 or so years and her recent predecessors kept to it too.
ETA ‘recent’ being relative in her case, of course.
It is fundamentally disingenuous to try and assert that removing a source of anti-personnel weapons from criminals will not make a difference. It won’t solve the whole problem, but it will, by its nature (as has been established above, thefts of these weapons in the UK are non-zero), have an incremental positive effect.
Just because you are unwilling or unable to recognize it, doesn’t make it so.
