Macron wants Ukraine in a category that includes the UK for non-political, non-economic cooperation. But no country in Western Europe wants more EU members right now. They see the last 20 years as a grave mistake that created a bunch of alt-right money pits, sort of the way most British look at the DUP actually, and probably would not have done the Eastern expansion if you gave them a second opportunity.
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
"Decades" is Macron cosying up to Putin.
And that’s you dog-whistling xenophobes.
Sometimes I fear for your mental health. It can't be easy watching from a distance as everything you desire goes up in flames and now your adopted nation has abandoned a policy you hold dear in favour of being on the same side as the nation you so deeply loathe.
That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.
And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
Now you are being a bit harsh (in your first paragraph at least, not the second). If I say A has always been a part of B because A has been a part of B since A came into being then I think that is reasonable. It would be the same as someone saying “I’ve always lived in London”; no one reasonable would respond “so you’ve been here since the Romans then?” They would be assumed to have lived in London all their life.
Team GB is a very well-known example of the distinction between GB, UK and NI.
I have no problem with Unionists in NI wanting to be citizens of the UK. But when they say "I'm British" I've always thought, no, you're Irish. You like on Ireland. Not Great Britain."
Anyway, we need to resolve this. Our government lovingly cast NI aside for an oven-ready deal it hadn't read the instructions for. But in reality we now face the end game for the province. More people voted for the NIP status quo than voted against it. Sinn Fein now in primacy in the north and looking likely to be the same in the south.
What we need to do is stop making stupid pro-DUP statements and think about how we keep the remaining ultra-hardcore unionists happy when Ireland either reunifies or NI becomes a self-governing mini-state.
Unionist parties also won more seats than Nationalists at Stormont. The fact most NI voters do not want a hard border in Ireland does not mean they do not want the Irish Sea border removed or to leave to UK either
Well, the DUP can't have their non-gay non-dinosaur cake and eat it, can they?
Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.
UK government arguments amount to: "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh! "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?
Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.
But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.
It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.
Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
With respect, you are one of the people who make bold statements on this subject from a position of profound legal and diplomatic ignorance.
With respect, I can read the text and please tell me where "unforeseen" is mentioned?
Article 16 Safeguards 1. If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol. 2. If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol. 3. Safeguard and rebalancing measures taken in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be governed by the procedures set out in Annex 7 to this Protocol.
Unilateral safeguard measures may be taken if there is diversion of trade, or societal problems likely to persist. That is all it says, it doesn't say unforeseen problems.
Indeed. And we have *already* taken those measures. So we can't legally trigger A16 to enact things that have already been enacted. But that's just what the lawyers say, what would they know?
Again, you do come across like the QT contributor, making bold statements that just don't work. I know you don't know why they won't work but that's because you aren't a lawyer. Thats why we have lawyers so that laypeople like me and thee can be protected from making a mess of ourselves by failing to understand the law.
We haven't taken those measures, we've taken some measures and have been in negotiations to resolve the problems always explicitly retaining the right to unilaterally implement more measures just as the Article explicitly gives us the right to do.
A bunch of lawyers with an axe to grind like Jolyon don't make themselves right.
I don't need to argue with you on this one. Its very simple. Pretty much the only legal brain who agrees with your position is Suella Braverman. So legally your argument doesn't stand up. And politically your "just walk away we do what we want" argument is about to be handed to you in a goodie bag by the US congress delegation.
I know you want it and believe it. That doesn't make it true.
Let me guess, the US Congress delegation is going to express their "concern" and that the "Good Friday Agreement must be respected".
Considering the fact that the decision to take actions is to be made "unilaterally", the fact that the Attorney General agrees with me trumps every other hack lawyer grinding their own axe.
You're parking your bus on "Braverman agrees with me"?
Good luck in court. Just because they appointed mince as the AG doesn't mean she has a clue what she is talking about. The government will be taken to court, will have its arse handed to it on a plate, at which point the government attack "leftie lawyers". Or "hack lawyers" as you put it.
The political persuasion of lawyers doesn't matter in court. Only the law. The hack / leftie lawyers don't win if their legal argument is invalid. There is politics - where you can say any old shit and get away with it - and there is the law. Where you can't.
Johnson wants to restore civil service numbers to 2016 levels (cutting 90k jobs) to save £3.5bn a year. The additional numbers were employed to process Brexit.
More proof it has cost, rather than saved us money.
I see little chance of Jeremy Hunt losing his seat to the Lib Dems unless he’s sunk by a personal scandal. You can’t compute across from neighbouring seats. Woking council in particular has been beset by alleged corruption for years. Even in Woking it’s far from clear the swing will translate to a particularly close general election result. South West Surrey there’s next to no chance of a Lib Dem gain and the party would be foolish to expend much activity trying when there are more obvious targets.
I can see Hunt holding his seat. He both has a personal profile head and shoulders above the moron drones that infest the Tory backbenches, and is clearly not representing Johnson and his ethos. He'll be ok.
The LDs need an 8% swing to win SW Surrey, very doable on current polls, especially if they squeeze the 8% Labour got there last time
Macron wants Ukraine in a category that includes the UK for non-political, non-economic cooperation. But no country in Western Europe wants more EU members right now. They see the last 20 years as a grave mistake that created a bunch of alt-right money pits, sort of the way most British look at the DUP actually, and probably would not have done the Eastern expansion if you gave them a second opportunity.
Broader rather than deeper expansion was, to some extent, influenced by the British. Now that they're out of the picture the EU is less fascinated with eastward expansion.
The formal name of Team GB is the "Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team" but to the lay public it is simply Team GB, so its pretty reasonable for people to consider NI as part of GB, considering the amount of marketing etc associated with team GB which includes NI.
Its one of those things that is formally an error, but substantially for lay people, it isn't. If its good enough for Team GB to refer to Northern Ireland as a part of GB, why isn't it good enough for general people to do the same?
Becvause rather a lot of the NIrish play for Ireland, not the UK.
A lot do, a lot don't.
The Good Friday Agreement means NI are still a part of the UK and can still compete under Team GB and have British citizenship but they also have the right to choose Irish citizenship and choose to compete for Ireland if they want to.
That doesn't make them any less British though, if they prefer to be considered British, and they are still a part of the UK and Team GB if that is what they prefer.
If anyone though that all of Northern Ireland competes for Ireland that is far more substantially wrong than making the same linguistic technical error that tens of millions make every single Olympics year when they refer to Team GB.
Britishness is a political synonym for Englishness. That is what it means.
It extends English culture over the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish.
Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.
UK government arguments amount to: "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh! "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?
Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.
But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.
It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.
Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
With respect, you are one of the people who make bold statements on this subject from a position of profound legal and diplomatic ignorance.
With respect, I can read the text and please tell me where "unforeseen" is mentioned?
Article 16 Safeguards 1. If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol. 2. If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol. 3. Safeguard and rebalancing measures taken in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be governed by the procedures set out in Annex 7 to this Protocol.
Unilateral safeguard measures may be taken if there is diversion of trade, or societal problems likely to persist. That is all it says, it doesn't say unforeseen problems.
Indeed. And we have *already* taken those measures. So we can't legally trigger A16 to enact things that have already been enacted. But that's just what the lawyers say, what would they know?
Again, you do come across like the QT contributor, making bold statements that just don't work. I know you don't know why they won't work but that's because you aren't a lawyer. Thats why we have lawyers so that laypeople like me and thee can be protected from making a mess of ourselves by failing to understand the law.
We haven't taken those measures, we've taken some measures and have been in negotiations to resolve the problems always explicitly retaining the right to unilaterally implement more measures just as the Article explicitly gives us the right to do.
A bunch of lawyers with an axe to grind like Jolyon don't make themselves right.
I don't need to argue with you on this one. Its very simple. Pretty much the only legal brain who agrees with your position is Suella Braverman. So legally your argument doesn't stand up. And politically your "just walk away we do what we want" argument is about to be handed to you in a goodie bag by the US congress delegation.
I know you want it and believe it. That doesn't make it true.
Let me guess, the US Congress delegation is going to express their "concern" and that the "Good Friday Agreement must be respected".
Considering the fact that the decision to take actions is to be made "unilaterally", the fact that the Attorney General agrees with me trumps every other hack lawyer grinding their own axe.
You're parking your bus on "Braverman agrees with me"?
Good luck in court. Just because they appointed mince as the AG doesn't mean she has a clue what she is talking about. The government will be taken to court, will have its arse handed to it on a plate, at which point the government attack "leftie lawyers". Or "hack lawyers" as you put it.
The political persuasion of lawyers doesn't matter in court. Only the law. The hack / leftie lawyers don't win if their legal argument is invalid. There is politics - where you can say any old shit and get away with it - and there is the law. Where you can't.
Quite. There's even a nice newspaper front page all ready to cut and paste.
Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.
UK government arguments amount to: "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh! "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?
Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.
But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.
It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.
Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
With respect, you are one of the people who make bold statements on this subject from a position of profound legal and diplomatic ignorance.
With respect, I can read the text and please tell me where "unforeseen" is mentioned?
Article 16 Safeguards 1. If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol. 2. If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol. 3. Safeguard and rebalancing measures taken in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be governed by the procedures set out in Annex 7 to this Protocol.
Unilateral safeguard measures may be taken if there is diversion of trade, or societal problems likely to persist. That is all it says, it doesn't say unforeseen problems.
Indeed. And we have *already* taken those measures. So we can't legally trigger A16 to enact things that have already been enacted. But that's just what the lawyers say, what would they know?
Again, you do come across like the QT contributor, making bold statements that just don't work. I know you don't know why they won't work but that's because you aren't a lawyer. Thats why we have lawyers so that laypeople like me and thee can be protected from making a mess of ourselves by failing to understand the law.
We haven't taken those measures, we've taken some measures and have been in negotiations to resolve the problems always explicitly retaining the right to unilaterally implement more measures just as the Article explicitly gives us the right to do.
A bunch of lawyers with an axe to grind like Jolyon don't make themselves right.
I don't need to argue with you on this one. Its very simple. Pretty much the only legal brain who agrees with your position is Suella Braverman. So legally your argument doesn't stand up. And politically your "just walk away we do what we want" argument is about to be handed to you in a goodie bag by the US congress delegation.
I know you want it and believe it. That doesn't make it true.
Let me guess, the US Congress delegation is going to express their "concern" and that the "Good Friday Agreement must be respected".
Considering the fact that the decision to take actions is to be made "unilaterally", the fact that the Attorney General agrees with me trumps every other hack lawyer grinding their own axe.
You're parking your bus on "Braverman agrees with me"?
Good luck in court. Just because they appointed mince as the AG doesn't mean she has a clue what she is talking about. The government will be taken to court, will have its arse handed to it on a plate, at which point the government attack "leftie lawyers". Or "hack lawyers" as you put it.
The political persuasion of lawyers doesn't matter in court. Only the law. The hack / leftie lawyers don't win if their legal argument is invalid. There is politics - where you can say any old shit and get away with it - and there is the law. Where you can't.
A simple but apt statement there. I think Trump and his supporters took a while to realise that.
Johnson wants to restore civil service numbers to 2016 levels (cutting 90k jobs) to save £3.5bn a year. The additional numbers were employed to process Brexit.
More proof it has cost, rather than saved us money.
Actually many of those people were hired to deal with the pandemic, but hey ho, I don't expect integrity from you.
Brexit is done and the pandemic is done, so people hired to deal with that should be let go.
EU membership cost us over £10bn per annum, so if it had cost us £3.5bn for a couple of years to get Brexit done that would be a bargain at less than half the price.
Bet on Jeremy Hunt with great caution. He won't be a Member of Parliament after the next election. I am certain the LibDems will win Surrey South West.
p.s. Hunt's majority last time was 8,817 but that already came on the back of a 15.6% swing from Cons to LibDem. The LibDems are making HUGE inroads into Surrey, gathering eye-catching momentum since 2019.
I am certain the Cons are going to lose Surrey South West. There are other seats in Surrey and SW London which are vulnerable as well. The blue wall is not holding. The yellows are advancing.
He'll hang on if he's PM, the PM always gets a boost.
That's a good point. If he defenestrates Johnson and is made PM prior to the election he should get a boost.
I still think there's a massive yellow move in Surrey. I live here and it's really noticeable. Never seen anything like it. So, notwithstanding the boost, I reckon the LibDems will still take his seat.
You’ve never seen Lib Dem hype before?! That settles it: you are very, very young.
I’ve seen at least 5 waves of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem victorious advances. They all ended in tears.
Ah yes, winning here. The massively successful decapitation strategy being one such example
How does getting rid of 90000 civil servants ease the cost of living crisis?
It could free up money to cut taxes, easing the cost of living crisis.
Taking an axe to the state and ensuring the state does less is precisely what the country needs to do to get back on the path to prosperity.
Bit harsh on the 90000. Probably mostly nimbies though so serve them right
Churn in the labour market is a fact of life. If their jobs are redundant, their jobs are redundant.
Its about taking the civil service back to what it was six years ago, not some austerity worse than that. Brexit and the pandemic are both done, anyone hired to deal with either is redundant.
Johnson wants to restore civil service numbers to 2016 levels (cutting 90k jobs) to save £3.5bn a year. The additional numbers were employed to process Brexit.
More proof it has cost, rather than saved us money.
Actually many of those people were hired to deal with the pandemic, but hey ho, I don't expect integrity from you.
Brexit is done and the pandemic is done, so people hired to deal with that should be let go.
EU membership cost us over £10bn per annum, so if it had cost us £3.5bn for a couple of years to get Brexit done that would be a bargain at less than half the price.
Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.
UK government arguments amount to: "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh! "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?
Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.
But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.
It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.
Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
With respect, you are one of the people who make bold statements on this subject from a position of profound legal and diplomatic ignorance.
With respect, I can read the text and please tell me where "unforeseen" is mentioned?
Article 16 Safeguards 1. If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol. 2. If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol. 3. Safeguard and rebalancing measures taken in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be governed by the procedures set out in Annex 7 to this Protocol.
Unilateral safeguard measures may be taken if there is diversion of trade, or societal problems likely to persist. That is all it says, it doesn't say unforeseen problems.
Indeed. And we have *already* taken those measures. So we can't legally trigger A16 to enact things that have already been enacted. But that's just what the lawyers say, what would they know?
Again, you do come across like the QT contributor, making bold statements that just don't work. I know you don't know why they won't work but that's because you aren't a lawyer. Thats why we have lawyers so that laypeople like me and thee can be protected from making a mess of ourselves by failing to understand the law.
We haven't taken those measures, we've taken some measures and have been in negotiations to resolve the problems always explicitly retaining the right to unilaterally implement more measures just as the Article explicitly gives us the right to do.
A bunch of lawyers with an axe to grind like Jolyon don't make themselves right.
I don't need to argue with you on this one. Its very simple. Pretty much the only legal brain who agrees with your position is Suella Braverman. So legally your argument doesn't stand up. And politically your "just walk away we do what we want" argument is about to be handed to you in a goodie bag by the US congress delegation.
I know you want it and believe it. That doesn't make it true.
Let me guess, the US Congress delegation is going to express their "concern" and that the "Good Friday Agreement must be respected".
Considering the fact that the decision to take actions is to be made "unilaterally", the fact that the Attorney General agrees with me trumps every other hack lawyer grinding their own axe.
You're parking your bus on "Braverman agrees with me"?
Good luck in court. Just because they appointed mince as the AG doesn't mean she has a clue what she is talking about. The government will be taken to court, will have its arse handed to it on a plate, at which point the government attack "leftie lawyers". Or "hack lawyers" as you put it.
The political persuasion of lawyers doesn't matter in court. Only the law. The hack / leftie lawyers don't win if their legal argument is invalid. There is politics - where you can say any old shit and get away with it - and there is the law. Where you can't.
OK and tell me please which court has jurisdiction over whether the UK can or can not unilaterally exercise its powers, that it is explicitly allowed to unilaterally exercise?
‘All the civil service needs fewer ppl’ says Jacob Rees-Mogg. Been told over and over again by civil servants they don’t have resources to process visas for Afghans and Ukranians at speed they’re supposed to .. #r4today https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1525012115618136065
How does getting rid of 90000 civil servants ease the cost of living crisis?
It could free up money to cut taxes, easing the cost of living crisis.
Taking an axe to the state and ensuring the state does less is precisely what the country needs to do to get back on the path to prosperity.
Bit harsh on the 90000. Probably mostly nimbies though so serve them right
Churn in the labour market is a fact of life. If their jobs are redundant, their jobs are redundant.
Its about taking the civil service back to what it was six years ago, not some austerity worse than that. Brexit and the pandemic are both done, anyone hired to deal with either is redundant.
Where are all the staff coming from to staff the borders? Or have HMG completely given up on that, being unable to organise a 5 year old's fingerpainting event in a paint factory?
Where are all the staff coming from to staff the borders? Or have HMG completely given up on that, being unable to organise a 5 year old's fingerpainting event in a paint factory?
We have abandoned controlling our borders. Don't need the staff.
How does getting rid of 90000 civil servants ease the cost of living crisis?
It could free up money to cut taxes, easing the cost of living crisis.
Taking an axe to the state and ensuring the state does less is precisely what the country needs to do to get back on the path to prosperity.
Bit harsh on the 90000. Probably mostly nimbies though so serve them right
Churn in the labour market is a fact of life. If their jobs are redundant, their jobs are redundant.
Its about taking the civil service back to what it was six years ago, not some austerity worse than that. Brexit and the pandemic are both done, anyone hired to deal with either is redundant.
Where are all the staff coming from to staff the borders? Or have HMG completely given up on that, being unable to organise a 5 year old's fingerpainting event in a paint factory?
Why should we staff the borders?
The borders have always been staffed at passport control etc, the change from Brexit doesn't require 90,000 extra people and having stupid, pointless, protectionist checks on produce from equivalent nations is self-harming protectionism of the type we can abolish now we're no longer a part of the protectionist European Union.
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
there's a curious crossover between people who philosophically want to slash the size of the civil service and people who wanted Brexit...given that Brexit led to the civil service expanding hugely https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1525013350148624385
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
If any of the civil servants are unhappy with the situation, why don't they quit and get a better job elsewhere?
Then the 91,000 surplus will be gone, and the former civil servants will be able to be happy in a new role elsewhere, everybody wins.
Unless they want to keep their cushy jobs and just moan?
Meanwhile I have read various legal commentators regarding the NIP. We can set aside whatever "its ok" advice Braverman has given the government because she has as much credibility as a legal officer as Richard Burgon would have had in a Labour cabinet in the same role.
UK government arguments amount to: "Its created a trade border" - not a new development as it was clear thats what it was "Its damaging trade" - the same. Duh! "The GFA has legal primacy" - you wot?
Even Triggering A16 has its difficulties - we won't give a month's notice, we have already taken mitigating action which A16 allows us to then take, and we don't have any suggestions for what we do after triggering A16 to restore the NIP in a workable form.
But we don't want to do that. The threat to Boris is too big even for that. So having threatened it repeatedly we're now threatening the entire treaty. Or at least we are on paper. Because in the real world we don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the US delegation are flying in to point out in a pretty brutal manner that we don't have a political leg to stand on either.
It doesn't need to be "a new development", if its damaging trade that is a criterion met. Nothing in the 16th Article requires it to be new or unforeseen or unclear.
Indeed the reason you put in safeguarding or take out insurance is very often precisely because problems are foreseeable, so the fact that a problem that was foreseen has come to pass is not a reason not to engage in safeguarding, it is a reason to follow through with it.
With respect, you are one of the people who make bold statements on this subject from a position of profound legal and diplomatic ignorance.
With respect, I can read the text and please tell me where "unforeseen" is mentioned?
Article 16 Safeguards 1. If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol. 2. If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol. 3. Safeguard and rebalancing measures taken in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be governed by the procedures set out in Annex 7 to this Protocol.
Unilateral safeguard measures may be taken if there is diversion of trade, or societal problems likely to persist. That is all it says, it doesn't say unforeseen problems.
Indeed. And we have *already* taken those measures. So we can't legally trigger A16 to enact things that have already been enacted. But that's just what the lawyers say, what would they know?
Again, you do come across like the QT contributor, making bold statements that just don't work. I know you don't know why they won't work but that's because you aren't a lawyer. Thats why we have lawyers so that laypeople like me and thee can be protected from making a mess of ourselves by failing to understand the law.
We haven't taken those measures, we've taken some measures and have been in negotiations to resolve the problems always explicitly retaining the right to unilaterally implement more measures just as the Article explicitly gives us the right to do.
A bunch of lawyers with an axe to grind like Jolyon don't make themselves right.
I don't need to argue with you on this one. Its very simple. Pretty much the only legal brain who agrees with your position is Suella Braverman. So legally your argument doesn't stand up. And politically your "just walk away we do what we want" argument is about to be handed to you in a goodie bag by the US congress delegation.
I know you want it and believe it. That doesn't make it true.
Let me guess, the US Congress delegation is going to express their "concern" and that the "Good Friday Agreement must be respected".
Considering the fact that the decision to take actions is to be made "unilaterally", the fact that the Attorney General agrees with me trumps every other hack lawyer grinding their own axe.
You're parking your bus on "Braverman agrees with me"?
Good luck in court. Just because they appointed mince as the AG doesn't mean she has a clue what she is talking about. The government will be taken to court, will have its arse handed to it on a plate, at which point the government attack "leftie lawyers". Or "hack lawyers" as you put it.
The political persuasion of lawyers doesn't matter in court. Only the law. The hack / leftie lawyers don't win if their legal argument is invalid. There is politics - where you can say any old shit and get away with it - and there is the law. Where you can't.
OK and tell me please which court has jurisdiction over whether the UK can or can not unilaterally exercise its powers, that it is explicitly allowed to unilaterally exercise?
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
You mean like those that partied in Downing Street and Whitehall
A good start would be by sacking each and everyone of them
Ireland is completely integrated as one Nation in Rugby Union and cricket. Both internationally and at club level. But not in football or the Olympics. It seems to go without a hitch. Does anyone know why this should be? Is it a class thing? Also. Hunt is the first senior Tory to mention the elephant. Tory LE results were dire. Right at the far extremity of expectations. They all must privately have noticed, surely?
Pleasingly retro looking drone. Stick a pilot between the engines and it could be a 1920s bomber.
IIRC Lerwick Tingwall is a single runway strip, ditto Unst. I'm slightly surprised it can land in Shetland given the effect of side winds on that empennage. Possibly it's takeoff and landing runs are so short it can do it across the runway in a crosswind?
Edit: on second thoughts, can those undercarriage legs castor sideways like a B-52's?
Castor is angular and/or linear displacement of the steering axis from the vertical axis of a wheel in order to induce a moment that aligns the wheel with the direction of travel. On B-52 the entire bogie is rotated in the yaw axis by hydraulics. If it did have all castoring gear a stiff crosswind on that five storey vertical stab could send it pirouetting down the runway which would be very exciting for all on board.
Sea Harrier had selectable castoring on the nosewheel with differing gain levels. It was one part of the aircraft where they seemed to have invested a great deal of time and money for some reason.
I wonder if it was an evolutionary inheritance, like human gillslits. IIRC the original P.1127 demonstrator had problems with nosewheel shimmy when it came to rolling takeoffs.
Ireland is completely integrated as one Nation in Rugby Union and cricket. Both internationally and at club level. But not in football or the Olympics. It seems to go without a hitch. Does anyone know why this should be? Is it a class thing? Also. Hunt is the first senior Tory to mention the elephant. Tory LE results were dire. They all must privately have noticed, surely?
If they do not act decisively on the Sue Grey report to send Boris packing then many of them only have 2 more years left as an mp
That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
It's a pretty crucial error in any discussion whatsoever of NI and its constitutional position. A bit like getting your Persian Gulf geography wrong.
That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
It's a pretty crucial error in any discussion whatsoever of NI and its constitutional position. A bit like getting your Persian Gulf geography wrong.
If any of the civil servants are unhappy with the situation, why don't they quit and get a better job elsewhere?
Then the 91,000 surplus will be gone, and the former civil servants will be able to be happy in a new role elsewhere, everybody wins.
...except perhaps people who wanted an effective civil service, since disproportionately the good people will have left and government will be left with those not confident of finding a job elsewhere...
These people were hired to deal with Brexit the pandemic...
Aye, right.
What part of Brexit is done and the pandemic is done are you struggling to wrap your head around.
If Brexit is done, and the pandemic is done, we can go back 2016 levels of staff.
The civil servants are needed to oversee the post Brexit environment, where all kind of regulatory functions have been repatriated from the EU to the UK and where new regulatory frictions, eg at the UK border, have been created. Not to oversee the act of Brexit, which is over. This is why the whole spiel about saving money by leaving the EU was nonsense (the European Commission is actually a remarkably lean and efficient piece of government machinery).
Ireland is completely integrated as one Nation in Rugby Union and cricket. Both internationally and at club level. But not in football or the Olympics. It seems to go without a hitch. Does anyone know why this should be? Is it a class thing? Also. Hunt is the first senior Tory to mention the elephant. Tory LE results were dire. Right at the far extremity of expectations. They all must privately have noticed, surely?
The Tory NEV voteshare in this year's local elections was higher than the Tory NEV in the local elections of 2019, 2014, 2013, 1996, 1995, 1994 and the same as in 2016.
There have been far worse local elections than this year's for the Tories
If Labour hadn't stood and every one of their votes had gone to the Greens, the lead Conservative would have won by 1 vote. Sadly, Brian Adams died, hence the by-election. The Green challenger stood again and Labour and LibDems, um, didn't find suitable candidates. But a deselected Conservative, the former PCC for Surrey David Munro, decided to stand.
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
‘All the civil service needs fewer ppl’ says Jacob Rees-Mogg. Been told over and over again by civil servants they don’t have resources to process visas for Afghans and Ukranians at speed they’re supposed to .. #r4today https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1525012115618136065
I'm sure he has based his view on evidence and not ideology (they are not at their desk when I came by, therefore they are not working, therefore they can be made redundant). I hope he has published a breakdown of each department and how many should go from each, by area, as surely the 90k is not an arbitrary figure?
That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
It's a pretty crucial error in any discussion whatsoever of NI and its constitutional position. A bit like getting your Persian Gulf geography wrong.
Arabian Gulf.
Beg pardon, is that the preferred term now?
It is if you’re Arab.
Or Google.
Edit: maybe Google is location-sensitive for these things, and if I were in Iran it would be called the Persian Gulf.
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
If any of the civil servants are unhappy with the situation, why don't they quit and get a better job elsewhere?
Then the 91,000 surplus will be gone, and the former civil servants will be able to be happy in a new role elsewhere, everybody wins.
Unless they want to keep their cushy jobs and just moan?
Anyone good will be updating their CV and leaving ASAP - what you will be left rid is the ones who aren't that good.
Also it doesn't actually save that much in the scheme of things - total savings will be £3-4bn (Iooks big but decimates the work force) but at the cost of more things being outsourced at twice the price.
Sacking large amounts of people isn't a solution to save money - HMRC tried that - they are now (or were until yesterday) on a big recruitment spree to find the workers they need to actually do the things that they were neglecting (such as enforcement).
The UK government is preparing to unilaterally disavow an international treaty signed by the UK government fewer than three years ago. Worse, their 80-seat majority was built upon the now proven lie that it was a wonderful treaty that would signal the end of Brexit negotiations. https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1525018732665389056
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
You mean like those that partied in Downing Street and Whitehall
A good start would be by sacking each and everyone of them
Glad to see you aren't condemning a hundred thousand on the basis of a couple of hundred.
And even some of the partiers will be doing a job that needs doing - sure, sack them all, but some will need replacing, so not much progress toward the target number.
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
You mean like those that partied in Downing Street and Whitehall
A good start would be by sacking each and everyone of them
You do realise that those partying were largely political appointees and No. 10 political staff not regular civil service people?
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
If any of the civil servants are unhappy with the situation, why don't they quit and get a better job elsewhere?
Then the 91,000 surplus will be gone, and the former civil servants will be able to be happy in a new role elsewhere, everybody wins.
Unless they want to keep their cushy jobs and just moan?
Anyone good will be updating their CV and leaving ASAP - what you will be left rid is the ones who aren't that good.
Also it doesn't actually save that much in the scheme of things - total savings will be £3-4bn (Iooks big but decimates the work force) but at the cost of more things being outsourced at twice the price.
Sacking large amounts of people isn't a solution to save money - HMRC tried that - they are now (or were until yesterday) on a big recruitment spree to find the workers they need to actually do the things that they were neglecting (such as enforcement).
Could Mr R-M be doing a NI Bridge/Rwanda/etc to try and get street cred with the Party members for when the Big Dog gets his nuts finally caught?
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
Well, yes, Britain told the rest of the EU this optimistic view in the early 2000s, then when it didn't quite work out Britain quit and left the others to hold the baby, paying for Hungary's paranoia and Poland's homophobe councils.
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
It will be an order of decades - it could be 20 years.
It's also about national pride.
A friend has been building a house, slowly, in Montenegro.
He has often expressed surprise in the way that corruption has reduced there - literally, people who he used to have to give a gift to, now refusing it. "Because our country is changing".
Of course, a big part of that is enforcement, but there is a genuine sense there of "We want to become a Western country".
It's pathetic, it really is. Whenever this government is in a bit of trouble, it lashes out in the sure knowledge that enough people will agree that the targets are legitimate.
This week's targets for lashing out are a) the EU, and b) the Civil Service. Next week? Who knows. Woke universities probably, then the French, then asylum seekers. Let's feed the hate, they think. It's so divisive and dangerous for the body politic.
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
It will be an order of decades - it could be 20 years.
It's also about national pride.
A friend has been building a house, slowly, in Montenegro.
He has often expressed surprise in the way that corruption has reduced there - literally, people who he used to have to give a gift to, now refusing it. "Because our country is changing".
Of course, a big part of that is enforcement, but there is a genuine sense there of "We want to become a Western country".
Indeed. Also, war acts as a catalyst for these types of things - Germany post-WW2 being a classic example but, if you want an example that was not enforced under occupation, look at Italy
(although I realise Italy may not be the best example on the reducing corruption front..)
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
You mean like those that partied in Downing Street and Whitehall
A good start would be by sacking each and everyone of them
Glad to see you aren't condemning a hundred thousand on the basis of a couple of hundred.
And even some of the partiers will be doing a job that needs doing - sure, sack them all, but some will need replacing, so not much progress toward the target number.
I also wonder how the industrial tribunals would go if BigG were HR manager. Sure, some got FPN, but is that sufficient for instant dismissal? Especially if each event was sanctioned/ordered by senior management and political management.
The defenders of Mr J et al tell us a FPN is like a parking offence - but that wouldn't be sufficient for summary dismissal in itself, even if in the government car. Bollocking and perhaps warning, I'd think.
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
Well, yes, Britain told the rest of the EU this optimistic view in the early 2000s, then when it didn't quite work out Britain quit and left the others to hold the baby, paying for Hungary's paranoia and Poland's homophobe councils.
Should those countries have been accepted or not? On the whole, I would say accession has benefitted those countries significantly. And the fact Orban is definitely the odd person out demonstrates that.
The UK government is preparing to unilaterally disavow an international treaty signed by the UK government fewer than three years ago. Worse, their 80-seat majority was built upon the now proven lie that it was a wonderful treaty that would signal the end of Brexit negotiations. https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1525018732665389056
That's harsh - I hate those Twitter pile-ons. So the guy mixed up UK and GB - the majority of people wouldn't know the difference (despite the clue on their passports).
He didn't. Its incorrect to say that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK when it only came into existence in 1922. The UK was Great Britain and Ireland, not Northern Ireland which hadn't been created.
And then the rest of his rant, about how the EU had taken it off us. He does know this was our solution? This was the oven-ready deal he voted for in 2019.
Yes, yes - I'm aware that his utterance of "always" is a mistake as well. Criticise the substance of his point.
I saw Hunt at a Tory leadership hustings event and thought he was very impressive - intelligent, thoughtful and articulate. That the Tories chose Johnson instead tells you everything you need to know about the moral and intellectual health of the party. It would be quite a pivot for them to go back and make the right choice now, I think they're too far gone down the UKIP rabbit hole to do it.
If Labour hadn't stood and every one of their votes had gone to the Greens, the lead Conservative would have won by 1 vote. Sadly, Brian Adams died, hence the by-election. The Green challenger stood again and Labour and LibDems, um, didn't find suitable candidates. But a deselected Conservative, the former PCC for Surrey David Munro, decided to stand.
Ireland is completely integrated as one Nation in Rugby Union and cricket. Both internationally and at club level. But not in football or the Olympics. It seems to go without a hitch. Does anyone know why this should be? Is it a class thing? Also. Hunt is the first senior Tory to mention the elephant. Tory LE results were dire. Right at the far extremity of expectations. They all must privately have noticed, surely?
In Soccer, the Home Countries get a seat on the IFAB individually in recognition of soccer being invented in the UK. If NI link with Ireland they lose the seat. This is why there's never a true Olympic soccer team for GB, the Scots always object, because they are worried about losing their separate place.
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
It will be an order of decades - it could be 20 years.
It's also about national pride.
A friend has been building a house, slowly, in Montenegro.
He has often expressed surprise in the way that corruption has reduced there - literally, people who he used to have to give a gift to, now refusing it. "Because our country is changing".
Of course, a big part of that is enforcement, but there is a genuine sense there of "We want to become a Western country".
In addition: just the application process can help. The AQ *can* be quite stringent (*), and a country taking an active part in the application process is likely to be progressing in the 'better' direction than one that is not.
(*) Although as we saw with Greece, some can be waved through.
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
Well, yes, Britain told the rest of the EU this optimistic view in the early 2000s, then when it didn't quite work out Britain quit and left the others to hold the baby, paying for Hungary's paranoia and Poland's homophobe councils.
Should those countries have been accepted or not? On the whole, I would say accession has benefitted those countries significantly. And the fact Orban is definitely the odd person out demonstrates that.
When we rejoin it will be a good opportunity to sweep away the corruption and cronyism that has taken root under the Johnson regime.
Ireland is completely integrated as one Nation in Rugby Union and cricket. Both internationally and at club level. But not in football or the Olympics. It seems to go without a hitch. Does anyone know why this should be? Is it a class thing? Also. Hunt is the first senior Tory to mention the elephant. Tory LE results were dire. Right at the far extremity of expectations. They all must privately have noticed, surely?
Class is certainly one thing. Irish Rugby historically has been played by the middle / upper middle classes in Ireland at private school. Also an element of Religion in that, because of the class side of things, the religious / nationalist angle was much less pronounced (and there were a fair few Protestants left in the Irish upper classes). Most of the other sports have very strong nationalist / religious origins - Gaelic football and hurling the most obvious. Football less so but the Northern and Southern Irish working classes were often divided by religion
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
Well, yes, Britain told the rest of the EU this optimistic view in the early 2000s, then when it didn't quite work out Britain quit and left the others to hold the baby, paying for Hungary's paranoia and Poland's homophobe councils.
Should those countries have been accepted or not? On the whole, I would say accession has benefitted those countries significantly. And the fact Orban is definitely the odd person out demonstrates that.
There was a naive, but understandable, tendency to treat the Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe as a homogeneous monolith post-1990. One that is only just wearing off. They had considerable differences even under Communism.
Ireland is completely integrated as one Nation in Rugby Union and cricket. Both internationally and at club level. But not in football or the Olympics. It seems to go without a hitch. Does anyone know why this should be? Is it a class thing? Also. Hunt is the first senior Tory to mention the elephant. Tory LE results were dire. Right at the far extremity of expectations. They all must privately have noticed, surely?
In Soccer, the Home Countries get a seat on the IFAB individually in recognition of soccer being invented in the UK. If NI link with Ireland they lose the seat. This is why there's never a true Olympic soccer team for GB, the Scots always object, because they are worried about losing their separate place.
Cheers yeah I was dimly aware there was a good reason
Ireland is completely integrated as one Nation in Rugby Union and cricket. Both internationally and at club level. But not in football or the Olympics. It seems to go without a hitch. Does anyone know why this should be? Is it a class thing? Also. Hunt is the first senior Tory to mention the elephant. Tory LE results were dire. Right at the far extremity of expectations. They all must privately have noticed, surely?
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
You mean like those that partied in Downing Street and Whitehall
A good start would be by sacking each and everyone of them
You do realise that those partying were largely political appointees and No. 10 political staff not regular civil service people?
Were they? We don't know the full details yet - Sue Gray's report is STILL not allowed to be seen by the people and we don't know who has received FPN's other than the high profile names of Johnson, Mrs Johnson and Sunak.
If Labour hadn't stood and every one of their votes had gone to the Greens, the lead Conservative would have won by 1 vote. Sadly, Brian Adams died, hence the by-election. The Green challenger stood again and Labour and LibDems, um, didn't find suitable candidates. But a deselected Conservative, the former PCC for Surrey David Munro, decided to stand.
I'm not sure what to conclude from that! Name recognition as the former PCC, perhaps?
The other by election last night in Lewes had an equally curious result. Labour took 55% having previously not even had a candidate.
That is very odd. Usually in this area the main opponents of the Tories are the LibDems and (in some wards) the Greens, or local independents. Admittedly this was Peacehaven, next door to Newhaven where there is a pocket of Labour support, but with the Greens and LibDems also standing, that Labour vote share is extraordinary.
I see that @wooliedyed mentioned Translations by Brian Friel on the previous thread.
It is one of the very best plays I have ever seen. I've seen it three times: the original production at the Hampstead Theatre then again when it transferred to the National and a couple of years ago when the National put on another production with the wonderful Ciaran Hinds as the schoolteacher.
Brian Friel is a tremendous playwright. His Dancing at Lughnasa is another classic.
If you get the chance to watch either of these plays don't miss the opportunity!
If Labour hadn't stood and every one of their votes had gone to the Greens, the lead Conservative would have won by 1 vote. Sadly, Brian Adams died, hence the by-election. The Green challenger stood again and Labour and LibDems, um, didn't find suitable candidates. But a deselected Conservative, the former PCC for Surrey David Munro, decided to stand.
I'm not sure what to conclude from that! Name recognition as the former PCC, perhaps?
The other by election last night in Lewes had an equally curious result. Labour took 55% having previously not even had a candidate.
That is very odd. Usually in this area the main opponents of the Tories are the LibDems and (in some wards) the Greens, or local independents. Admittedly this was Peacehaven, next door to Newhaven where there is a pocket of Labour support, but with the Greens and LibDems also standing, that Labour vote share is extraordinary.
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
If any of the civil servants are unhappy with the situation, why don't they quit and get a better job elsewhere?
Then the 91,000 surplus will be gone, and the former civil servants will be able to be happy in a new role elsewhere, everybody wins.
Unless they want to keep their cushy jobs and just moan?
Anyone good will be updating their CV and leaving ASAP - what you will be left rid is the ones who aren't that good.
Also it doesn't actually save that much in the scheme of things - total savings will be £3-4bn (Iooks big but decimates the work force) but at the cost of more things being outsourced at twice the price.
Sacking large amounts of people isn't a solution to save money - HMRC tried that - they are now (or were until yesterday) on a big recruitment spree to find the workers they need to actually do the things that they were neglecting (such as enforcement).
That's the key isn't it?
I see it with local authority Department Director journeymen. "We have reduced our workforce by 25%. A saving of £1m pa". Very impressive!
"Meanwhile our budget for agency staff has increased to £1.5m, a symptom of the Pandemic and the economic crisis".
There's not a chance that Hunt will lose his seat. SW Surrey was a Lib Dem target for years (and they held Waverley council for a long time) but now he has a lead of 8,000.
WRT Ukraine, it's plain that both the "realists" (Russia is too powerful to resist in its own sphere of influence) and the Chomskyist left (wringing their hands about how the NATO will make things worse by intervening) have had a bad war.
The UK government is preparing to unilaterally disavow an international treaty signed by the UK government fewer than three years ago. Worse, their 80-seat majority was built upon the now proven lie that it was a wonderful treaty that would signal the end of Brexit negotiations. https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1525018732665389056
James O'Brien - the Tucker Carlson of Remainerism
Calling anyone other than convicted criminals 'the Tucker Carlson of ...' verges on libellous.
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
You mean like those that partied in Downing Street and Whitehall
A good start would be by sacking each and everyone of them
Glad to see you aren't condemning a hundred thousand on the basis of a couple of hundred.
And even some of the partiers will be doing a job that needs doing - sure, sack them all, but some will need replacing, so not much progress toward the target number.
I also wonder how the industrial tribunals would go if BigG were HR manager. Sure, some got FPN, but is that sufficient for instant dismissal? Especially if each event was sanctioned/ordered by senior management and political management.
The defenders of Mr J et al tell us a FPN is like a parking offence - but that wouldn't be sufficient for summary dismissal in itself, even if in the government car. Bollocking and perhaps warning, I'd think.
I am fed up with the way partygate is being run by the police. we are seeing victimisation of one set of people - those at No 10 with investigations that are not happening to any other people in the country, aside of the ridiculous Starmer event (so yes they are being victimised too). The level of the offences is so tiny and the money and time being put into it is totally out of proportion.
No-one else will ever be investigated for a lock down breach from 2020 to 2021. No-one. Those given FPN's should really be contesting their cases in a court of law. I strongly suspect most would win. Sunak for sure.
They were wrong to have behaved as they did. Yes government made the rules, but they were stupid, badly written rules which NO-ONE to this day fully understands. And yet partygate is dragging on and on over trivial offences. And we wonder why politicians get frustrated at the media.
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
Well, yes, Britain told the rest of the EU this optimistic view in the early 2000s, then when it didn't quite work out Britain quit and left the others to hold the baby, paying for Hungary's paranoia and Poland's homophobe councils.
Should those countries have been accepted or not? On the whole, I would say accession has benefitted those countries significantly. And the fact Orban is definitely the odd person out demonstrates that.
There was a naive, but understandable, tendency to treat the Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe as a homogeneous monolith post-1990. One that is only just wearing off. They had considerable differences even under Communism.
Indeed, and different historical roots. Hungary has always been a pain in the arse
You mean like those that partied in Downing Street and Whitehall
A good start would be by sacking each and everyone of them
I have wanted BoZo sacked since the day he was elected
I had no idea that you wanted that !!!!!
Scott was right about that though, wasn't he?
Only from the prism of those who really do not like brexit
I like Boris, am pleased we have left the EU, also that on the whole he got covid right with the vaccines and unlocking the economy while Starmer and the opposition would have kept us in a semi lockdown forever, and undeniably he has done well with Ukraine
However, 'partygate' is a step too far and not only has he lost the goodwill of the populace, he is now doing serious harm to the conservative party and his mps need to take decisive action to elect a new leader, and I am open on that, otherwise they risk annihilation at the polls in 2024
I would just also comment that Brexit needs work on it and consensus between the UK - EU and withdrawing from the NIP to placate a few DUP mps is daft and frankly will just make Boris et all more unpopular, as I do not detect a general mood in the UK and almost certainly in Northern Ireland to go down this road
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
Well, yes, Britain told the rest of the EU this optimistic view in the early 2000s, then when it didn't quite work out Britain quit and left the others to hold the baby, paying for Hungary's paranoia and Poland's homophobe councils.
Should those countries have been accepted or not? On the whole, I would say accession has benefitted those countries significantly. And the fact Orban is definitely the odd person out demonstrates that.
The EU is set up to deliver lower-income members benefits through structural investment transfers and labour market access. For sure. But existing members pay costs for those. And on the subjective political stuff, the biggest new members are hostile to common EU action. Finally they both cause and encourage anti-migrant sentiment that hurts support for the EU. So on net, the average W Europe EU government is firmly against any new members due to the disproportionate tail risk of a bad egg, and would even happily see Hungary gone in particular.
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
Well, yes, Britain told the rest of the EU this optimistic view in the early 2000s, then when it didn't quite work out Britain quit and left the others to hold the baby, paying for Hungary's paranoia and Poland's homophobe councils.
Should those countries have been accepted or not? On the whole, I would say accession has benefitted those countries significantly. And the fact Orban is definitely the odd person out demonstrates that.
When we rejoin it will be a good opportunity to sweep away the corruption and cronyism that has taken root under the Johnson regime.
If Labour hadn't stood and every one of their votes had gone to the Greens, the lead Conservative would have won by 1 vote. Sadly, Brian Adams died, hence the by-election. The Green challenger stood again and Labour and LibDems, um, didn't find suitable candidates. But a deselected Conservative, the former PCC for Surrey David Munro, decided to stand.
I'm not sure what to conclude from that! Name recognition as the former PCC, perhaps?
The other by election last night in Lewes had an equally curious result. Labour took 55% having previously not even had a candidate.
Not as curious as you think. The election was in Peacehaven, part of Lewes DC but just as close to Brighton. On the coastal strip, where Labour is picking up seats both east and west of Brighton now.
Ireland is completely integrated as one Nation in Rugby Union and cricket. Both internationally and at club level. But not in football or the Olympics. It seems to go without a hitch. Does anyone know why this should be? Is it a class thing? Also. Hunt is the first senior Tory to mention the elephant. Tory LE results were dire. Right at the far extremity of expectations. They all must privately have noticed, surely?
Class is certainly one thing. Irish Rugby historically has been played by the middle / upper middle classes in Ireland at private school. Also an element of Religion in that, because of the class side of things, the religious / nationalist angle was much less pronounced (and there were a fair few Protestants left in the Irish upper classes). Most of the other sports have very strong nationalist / religious origins - Gaelic football and hurling the most obvious. Football less so but the Northern and Southern Irish working classes were often divided by religion
Thanks. Am thinking now I once heard you could draw a pretty good correlation of Irish voting behaviour by the sports you followed. GAA Fianna Fail. Rugby Fine Gael. (Six Nations games disparagingly referred to as FG Party Conference). Football Labour (not anymore. Maybe that's gone to SF).
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
You mean like those that partied in Downing Street and Whitehall
A good start would be by sacking each and everyone of them
You do realise that those partying were largely political appointees and No. 10 political staff not regular civil service people?
It would be a big mistake for the EU to let Ukraine in in its present state. It's a worthwhile ambition, but as a tactical move it would be terrible.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth before the war and now it's barely a functioning state and economic black hole on top of that. So, on paper, Macron is right; they are decades away from meeting the requirements from EU membership...
And how long did it take the rest of the former Eastern European Soviet colonies - which weren't even democracies when they escaped the Russian sphere ? 'Decades' is just Macron being Macron.
And Dura Ace being Dura Ace.
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
Well, yes, Britain told the rest of the EU this optimistic view in the early 2000s, then when it didn't quite work out Britain quit and left the others to hold the baby, paying for Hungary's paranoia and Poland's homophobe councils.
Should those countries have been accepted or not? On the whole, I would say accession has benefitted those countries significantly. And the fact Orban is definitely the odd person out demonstrates that.
There was a naive, but understandable, tendency to treat the Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe as a homogeneous monolith post-1990. One that is only just wearing off. They had considerable differences even under Communism.
Indeed, and different historical roots. Hungary has always been a pain in the arse
Comments
Good luck in court. Just because they appointed mince as the AG doesn't mean she has a clue what she is talking about. The government will be taken to court, will have its arse handed to it on a plate, at which point the government attack "leftie lawyers". Or "hack lawyers" as you put it.
The political persuasion of lawyers doesn't matter in court. Only the law. The hack / leftie lawyers don't win if their legal argument is invalid. There is politics - where you can say any old shit and get away with it - and there is the law. Where you can't.
More proof it has cost, rather than saved us money.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61432498
Taking an axe to the state and ensuring the state does less is precisely what the country needs to do to get back on the path to prosperity.
It extends English culture over the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish.
https://theconversation.com/enemies-of-the-people-mps-and-press-gang-up-on-the-constitution-over-high-court-brexit-ruling-68241
Brexit is done and the pandemic is done, so people hired to deal with that should be let go.
EU membership cost us over £10bn per annum, so if it had cost us £3.5bn for a couple of years to get Brexit done that would be a bargain at less than half the price.
Its about taking the civil service back to what it was six years ago, not some austerity worse than that. Brexit and the pandemic are both done, anyone hired to deal with either is redundant.
"Brexit is done and the pandemic is done."
https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1525012115618136065
What event occurred in 2016 I wonder?
These people were hired to deal with
Brexitthe pandemic...Aye, right.
The borders have always been staffed at passport control etc, the change from Brexit doesn't require 90,000 extra people and having stupid, pointless, protectionist checks on produce from equivalent nations is self-harming protectionism of the type we can abolish now we're no longer a part of the protectionist European Union.
"Brexit is done and the pandemic is done", we've just been assured as an explanation.
If Brexit is done, and the pandemic is done, we can go back 2016 levels of staff.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1525013350148624385
Then the 91,000 surplus will be gone, and the former civil servants will be able to be happy in a new role elsewhere, everybody wins.
Unless they want to keep their cushy jobs and just moan?
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/governing-the-new-uk-eu-relationship-and-resolving-disputes/
A good start would be by sacking each and everyone of them
It seems to go without a hitch.
Does anyone know why this should be? Is it a class thing?
Also. Hunt is the first senior Tory to mention the elephant.
Tory LE results were dire. Right at the far extremity of expectations. They all must privately have noticed, surely?
And I've every confidence the tractor production statistics will bear that out.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1525016257828896768
There have been far worse local elections than this year's for the Tories
https://modgov.waverley.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=347&V=0&RPID=0
If Labour hadn't stood and every one of their votes had gone to the Greens, the lead Conservative would have won by 1 vote. Sadly, Brian Adams died, hence the by-election. The Green challenger stood again and Labour and LibDems, um, didn't find suitable candidates. But a deselected Conservative, the former PCC for Surrey David Munro, decided to stand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Munro_(police_commissioner)
I've met him, seemed a pleasant chap. He didn't turn up for the count. However...
https://modgov.waverley.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=388&RPID=15698362
I'm not sure what to conclude from that! Name recognition as the former PCC, perhaps?
Decades is a possibility, but as you note where theres will and support it can happen much faster. Societies can be transformed surprisingly quickly, and rebuilt quickly.
Can Ukraine manage that? It wont be easy, but the possibility doesnt deserve to be sneeringly dismissed by us. Macron can reasonably take the cautious prediction (personally I also think it will take the better part of a decade even going well), but a pessimistic or 'realistic' view is no more an automatic certainty than an optimistic one.
Or Google.
Edit: maybe Google is location-sensitive for these things, and if I were in Iran it would be called the Persian Gulf.
Also it doesn't actually save that much in the scheme of things - total savings will be £3-4bn (Iooks big but decimates the work force) but at the cost of more things being outsourced at twice the price.
Sacking large amounts of people isn't a solution to save money - HMRC tried that - they are now (or were until yesterday) on a big recruitment spree to find the workers they need to actually do the things that they were neglecting (such as enforcement).
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1525018732665389056
And even some of the partiers will be doing a job that needs doing - sure, sack them all, but some will need replacing, so not much progress toward the target number.
It's also about national pride.
A friend has been building a house, slowly, in Montenegro.
He has often expressed surprise in the way that corruption has reduced there - literally, people who he used to have to give a gift to, now refusing it. "Because our country is changing".
Of course, a big part of that is enforcement, but there is a genuine sense there of "We want to become a Western country".
This week's targets for lashing out are a) the EU, and b) the Civil Service.
Next week? Who knows. Woke universities probably, then the French, then asylum seekers. Let's feed the hate, they think. It's so divisive and dangerous for the body politic.
(although I realise Italy may not be the best example on the reducing corruption front..)
The defenders of Mr J et al tell us a FPN is like a parking offence - but that wouldn't be sufficient for summary dismissal in itself, even if in the government car. Bollocking and perhaps warning, I'd think.
(*) Although as we saw with Greece, some can be waved through.
They had considerable differences even under Communism.
Speaking of which... Just saw this. Satire is dead.
It is one of the very best plays I have ever seen. I've seen it three times: the original production at the Hampstead Theatre then again when it transferred to the National and a couple of years ago when the National put on another production with the wonderful Ciaran Hinds as the schoolteacher.
Brian Friel is a tremendous playwright. His Dancing at Lughnasa is another classic.
If you get the chance to watch either of these plays don't miss the opportunity!
I see it with local authority Department Director journeymen. "We have reduced our workforce by 25%. A saving of £1m pa". Very impressive!
"Meanwhile our budget for agency staff has increased to £1.5m, a symptom of the Pandemic and the economic crisis".
WRT Ukraine, it's plain that both the "realists" (Russia is too powerful to resist in its own sphere of influence) and the Chomskyist left (wringing their hands about how the NATO will make things worse by intervening) have had a bad war.
No-one else will ever be investigated for a lock down breach from 2020 to 2021. No-one. Those given FPN's should really be contesting their cases in a court of law. I strongly suspect most would win. Sunak for sure.
They were wrong to have behaved as they did. Yes government made the rules, but they were stupid, badly written rules which NO-ONE to this day fully understands. And yet partygate is dragging on and on over trivial offences. And we wonder why politicians get frustrated at the media.
I like Boris, am pleased we have left the EU, also that on the whole he got covid right with the vaccines and unlocking the economy while Starmer and the opposition would have kept us in a semi lockdown forever, and undeniably he has done well with Ukraine
However, 'partygate' is a step too far and not only has he lost the goodwill of the populace, he is now doing serious harm to the conservative party and his mps need to take decisive action to elect a new leader, and I am open on that, otherwise they risk annihilation at the polls in 2024
I would just also comment that Brexit needs work on it and consensus between the UK - EU and withdrawing from the NIP to placate a few DUP mps is daft and frankly will just make Boris et all more unpopular, as I do not detect a general mood in the UK and almost certainly in Northern Ireland to go down this road
GAA Fianna Fail. Rugby Fine Gael. (Six Nations games disparagingly referred to as FG Party Conference). Football Labour (not anymore. Maybe that's gone to SF).
Two State Border Poll to be held before 2030 EVS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler