>> >> You know, I do listen to shittyfluted songs from time to time >> quoted2
> I know, and it is no problem. We are all shitty fulted from time to time I guess. > > Have you ever watched the Office comedy series (1999/2000) — iit is hilarious, but you will never get the humour if you don't know the culture. quoted1
P. S. In case you don't understand the humour in the Office series, here is the documentary about how it was made and the comments by the American famous actors and comedians — providing some explanations, it was a breakthrough in British comedy, there has been nothing like that ever since
In case anyone is interested in Brexit, here is a little synopsis of the latest
When is the Brexit 'meaningful vote' in Parliament, and what will happen if Theresa May's deal is rejected?
After months of negotiations, the Brexit deal was due to be voted upon in order for the United Kingdom's Parliament to approve or reject Theresa May's controversial plan.
However, last month the prime minister dramatically called off the «meaningful vote», in the face of what had been expected to be a significant defeat at the hands of rebel MPs.
Shortly after delaying the vote, the Prime Minister announced that it will instead be held in the week beginning on the 14th January — with a debate in Parliament taking place from the 7th January.
Government sources confirmed this morning that the vote will take place on 15th January, although there have been suggestions that the date could still be delayed.
But what does all this mean for the «meaningful vote» exactly, and what will the outcome mean? Here is all you need to know about what it is and the process involved.
What is the «meaningful vote» on Brexit, and how will it work in the House of Commons?
The «meaningful vote» Parliamentarians have on both the Withdrawal Agreement and the outline for the future relationship between Brexit Britain and the European Union was made law under Section 13(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which requires the draft deal to be put to both the House of Commons and House of Lords.
If MPs pass it, the deal will have much less of a problem making its way through the House of Lords
When has the vote been rescheduled for? The vote was originally expected to take place on Tuesday 11 December at around 7pm. But now the deal will return to Parliament to be debated from this Wednesday, with the meaningful vote taking place on Tuesday 15th January.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman said that Mrs May would observe the «spirit» of the EU Withdrawal Act, which requires her to make a statement to the Commons «before the end of January 21» if no agreement in principle has been reached with Brussels.
There was confusion at Westminster over whether the January 21 deadline applied, as a withdrawal deal has been reached. But Commons authorities suggested it did not, saying that in principle the ratification vote could take place as late as March 28 — the day before Brexit is scheduled to happen. Will Parliament vote for or against the deal? As it stands, the Government appears likely to lose any vote on the current deal — hence the new delay. Over 100 Conservative MPs have voiced opposition to it. The DUP and its 10 MPs have made clear they would vote against it. Hardcore Remainers, meanwhile, were planning to vote the deal down in the hope of a second referendum instead.
That means Mrs May would have needed Labour votes to succeed. However, the Labour leadership has been adamant that it opposes the deal and wants a general election. Convincing up to 100 opposition members to rebel and vote with the Government would have been a very tall order.
While defeat seemed certain, the hope had been that it would have been small enough for the Prime Minister to survive and head to Brussels to renegotiate.
However, Downing Street has grown worried that the defeat would be too heavy for Mrs May to carry on after. Instead, the vote has been delayed and Mrs May will try and win concessions from the EU first.
She is unlikely to get anything major from Brussels. The key issue, the Irish backstop, is not open for renegotiation. The demands from the Brexiteers for a time limit or a unilateral exit mechanism would render the backstop incapable of performing its intended job and so the EU will not allow it.
Nor is Brussels willing to reopen the legally-binding Withdrawal Agreement more generally. It fears demands from member states over issues such as fishing and Gibraltar. So all that will be on offer are small tweaks to the non-binding Political Declaration and perhaps a statement from EU lawyers on the backstop not being permanent.
None of which will be big enough to change the minds of most Brexiteer MPs. They might, however, reduce the size of the rebellion and thus make the two vote strategy viable again.
What happens if MPs do not pass it? The original plan, once it became clear the Government would lose the vote at the first attempt, was to try again a few days later. The expectation was that Mrs May would try and negotiate a few concessions from the EU, while market turmoil would spook MPs and make them think again. Although, with traders being fully aware of the plan and so «pricing it in», the odds of a major shift in the markets looked slim.
While the «renegotiation» will now happen ahead of the vote, Downing Street may still need more than one attempt to get it through Parliament.
In the intervening period between a first and second attempt to pass the deal, Labour would probably try and force a general election. This would be very difficult because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act and would require Conservative MPs to help topple their own government.
If and when that attempt fails, Labour might try and secure a vote for a second referendum. This would still require support from Tory MPs but would likely be easier than forcing a general election. Those efforts were boosted on Monday by the European Court of Justice ruling that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally.
The ruling removes the risk of Britain either not being allowed back in or having to make hugely unpalatable concessions such as agreeing to join the euro.
In the meantime, there might also be attempts to push the Government towards a softer Plan B, probably along the lines of «Norway Plus». This would mean staying in the single market and the customs union and continuing freedom of movement. It would, however, have an exit mechanism, unlike the Irish backstop, and potentially command a majority in the house. Several Cabinet ministers are rumoured to have been looking at the idea, but Labour continues to say that it is against a Norway-style Brexit.
If and when attempts at a second referendum or Norway-style Brexit fail, Labour MPs would have to seriously consider voting for Mrs May's deal. The alternative would be a no-deal Brexit.
⍟ Redhead (Expat), I have never actually listened to this song by Burdy, and have never heard of her at all. It sounds very good, but I don't understand what are the similarities between her and Adele. They sound very different in my opinion. Maybe it's because I don't give much attention to lyrics?
And here we come to your second post. I cannot imagine the situation you described above. In post-Soviet countries we have culturally declassified society, so people with different social ancestry won't have much peculiarities in their speech or manners. Those who read VK and Instagram-topics only or listen to 'blatny' (блатную) Russian music like modern rap or chanson, and those who read Dostoevsky, Turgenev, listen to much complicated music and know English at least at intermediate level (or another European language) will have differences in their speech. Even if their parents had just moved to the city from villages when one was born. Just listen to Melnichenko's tapes, private conversations of our former president Kuchma. His vocabulary has a lot of same with that of street hooligans and gaol prisoners (гопников и зеков).
About sophisticated lyrics I can't tell much either. The only one person I have listened to his songs attentively and a lot is Tsoy. He is not a professional musician and his parents hadn't no connexion with cultural life of the USSR. But just reckon that he has not only songs like 'Кончится лето' or 'Последний герой'
But also very sophisticated and deep compositions like 'Звезда по имени Солнце' or 'Место для шага вперед':
Some of them (but not these exactly) I have learnt by heart. Or recall the songs by Vysotsky, Okujava and others.
People are fond of simple songs because it is not hard to remember them and they make you happier. But there is a lot of deep, original sound, the best example is modern jazz. But it is not used to be listened in disco, clubs and may not bring much money to the potential producer. Those who had luck, like those you considered in the very beginning of your second post, became popular worldwide.
Oleksa Єromіn (WILDTRACER) wrote in reply to post:
> ⍟ Redhead (Expat), I have never actually listened to this song by Burdy, and have never heard of her at all. It sounds very good, but I don't understand what are the similarities between her and Adele. They sound very different in my opinion. Maybe it's because I don't give much attention to lyrics? > quoted1
It is not so much about the lyrics as such, and yeah their style is a bit different. Both are essentially pop singers, but a bit more sophisticated than your usual pop. Adele's style borders more on soul and a bit of country, Birdy's — on indie rock I would say. The similarities are that both are singer-song writers, both write their own music. Adele has conquered the international stage and arguably one of the most popular female singers worldwide in music history. Birdy started out relatively recently compared to Adele. And the reviews of her last album are just predicting her a huge future and that she has potential to replace Adele as the international phenomenon as regards popularity (snatch her crown so to speak). Because she is already showing more versatility in her style, she hasn't peaked yet, whereas some see Adele as having passed her peak and plateauing so to speak (coming off of her peak). Adele's recent tracks didn't show anything new compared to her previous work — it is same old, same old. This is what the reviewer meant.
Oleksa Єromіn (WILDTRACER) wrote in reply to post:
> And here we come to your second post. I cannot imagine the situation you described above. In post-Soviet countries we have culturally declassified society, so people with different social ancestry won't have much peculiarities in their speech or manners. quoted1
Well, you've got it in one. Here the society has never really been declassified. Funnily enough — even with the spread of wealth. There are lots of people now from working class backgrounds who have a lot of money. But they still don't belong to the upper class and they know they don't and a lot of them are proud of who they are and do not want to belong to that class. I will give you an example. A few actually. Say for example one is a successful plumber or builder and has millions of pounds due to the fact that they worked their way up and now own a big plumbing or building company. But they still speak with a working class accent, have working class habits, etc. They can afford to send their kid to a prestigious private school, but they don't want to and a lot of them say — we don't belong there. This is not us. And despite having the money to do it, they would rather send their kids to a good Church school — Catholic or Church of England, or just move to a classy area where the state schools are good, but they won't go private, cause they don't want to be among those «snooty posh people». On the other hand, someone who has upper class ancestry — might have lost some of their wealth (background does not necessarily guarantee permanent preservation of wealth),, but they will spend their last money to send their kids to some posh private school, cause they don't see themselves as belonging with those «horrible working class people». Even amongst very well known and popular people this is the case. For example Sir Alan Sugar — he is an East End Cockney boy essentially who built a successful business Empire from scratch and the Queen knighted him. He didn't want to accept the knighthood and did it only out of respect for the Queen according to him (all the classes love the Queen regardless, this cuts across the classes, this is just something that defines the British identity, even Scotland always said that if they were to split from England — they would insist the Queen remains their formal Head of State), he still deliberately speaks with the Cockney East End accent and mannerisms, as he says he wants to remain who he has always been.
With the middle class - they swing either way. And then again - there is low middle class, middle middle and upper middle. Upper middle class kind of aspire to the upper class, lower middle - don't mind the working class that much, middle middle are mostly happy amongst themselves, they are happy being your average Joe Bloggs if you like (Joe Bloggs - is just a word for an average guy).
⍟ Redhead (Expat), You have written much now, I will answer your posts tomorrow. 'Snatch somebody's crown' — that's a witty idiom, I will write it down
Actually, may I ask a grammar question? What types of verbs do you use more — phrasal verbs (like 'move on', 'take off' etc) or simple ones? I did today some grammar exercises on the first and sometimes I tended so much to forget those 'call off' and use 'cancel' instead… It is a bit hard for me to remember those complex words when I can simply recall a synonym, and when I read books and so on these phrasal verbs don't draw attention to themselves in a text
Oleksa Єromіn (WILDTRACER) wrote in reply to post:
> ⍟ Redhead (Expat), You have written much now, I will answer your posts tomorrow quoted1
Take your time, I won't be on the forum much in the next few days, we are going away for a long romantic weekend this weekend to a luxury countryside cottage (Monday the 14th is mine and my husband's wedding anniversary ). As regards the witty idiom, we use a lot of them here. The English language is much richer here — compared to other places like the States for instance, I can tell you that from experience. Hardly surprising really, England is the motherland of the English language.
Oleksa Єromіn (WILDTRACER) wrote in reply to post:
> Actually, may I ask a grammar question? What types of verbs do you use more — phrasal verbs (like 'move on', 'take off' etc) or simple ones? I did today some grammar exercises on the first and sometimes I tended so much to forget those 'call off' and use 'cancel' instead… It is a bit hard for me to remember those complex words when I can simply recall a synonym, and when I read books and so on these phrasal verbs don't draw attention to themselves in a text > quoted1
Of course you can ask me a grammar question. I am not too great with the grammar terms, but I got the essence of your question. To be perfectly honest with you, using phrasal verbs is a double edged sword (по русски — «палка о двух концах»). On the one hand, phrasal verbs can make one's self expression very direct and precise in certain situations, but on the other hand — overusing them is too lazy and depletes one's language of certain sophistication.
For example, you can of course say «call off» instead of «cancel», «give up» instead of «quit» or «come over» instead of «visit» or «come up» instead of «occur» — it is just lazy. Cause you are overusing the same verbs in your speech (using same words over and over again) — the most common ones like «come», «give», etc. And that impoverishes one's speech somewhat , not enriches it. Because with the help of prepositions, etc - one can just use one and the same common verbs to express almost everything. What is the point? I don't know really, I am not a grammar Nazi or anything like that, but here in England most educated people prefer normal verbs to phrasal ones, but sometimes still use phrasal verbs because it is just quicker. I don't know really. I mean — compare for example — «to endeavour» ( по русски -« прилагать усилия, попробовать») to its phrasal verb equivalent «to give it a go», «to give it a shot». In my view «to endeavour» sounds a lot more sophisticated and nicer.
> Russian figure skating is absolutely gorgeous, people here love and watch it as well quoted1
Yes. Kamila is a child, she will grow both in artistry and in technique, but her spins are already best in the world. And no one will challenge her in this area in the observable future. You can't be a mediocre spinner and then become a great spinner in 5 years. If you don't have a talent no matter how hard you work, you won't succeed.