This line being wheeled out by ministers on Protocol “they would prefer a negotiated settlement” is what I suspect they'll point to when UKG ultimately stands down/softens its demands vis EU. The alternative is trade war/even worse econ situation running into elections in 2024 1/
As we'll see from 🇪🇺 statement today, @trussliz has spectacularly miscalculated the EU's response. Rather than force movement from Bxl/capitals - she has simply stiffened the EU's resolve. But Truss has arguably miscalculated domestic politics too 2/
Her handling of this issue has clearly reinforced the desire of moderate Tories to block her leadership ambitions. There's a good chance now of a co-ordinated “stop Truss” movement among Tory MPs that would have a very good chance of succeeding if there was a leadership race 3/
Any other leader - except for Truss, who's heavily invested in Bill - will soften UKG stance & negotiate a deal. In my view that includes @BorisJohnson. This is not 2019. He joins battle with the EU this time around from a position of serious weakness - not strength ENDS
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
British scientists being booted out of the EU €95bn Horizon project will be the first economic consequence of the row over the NI Protocol bill. Far more important than any legal action restarted by Brussels today. As @anjahuja writes, it’s tragic https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1537000025540239361/photo/1
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
The Bill gives sweeping powers to change the protocol by regulations - which sets an appalling precedent that could easily be mis-used in the future - but in itself passing the Bill doesn't change anything, I believe?
It's going to be bitterly fought through parliament and is unlikely to make the statute book for some time.
Like the protocol itself, it appears to be an unworkable solution designed solely to buy the clown a bit more time. While he's pushing it he can claim to be doing something, even though nothing has changed, and even when/if it gets passed, nothing will have changed. Perhaps the real gameplan is to lose the Bill - perhaps at the hands of his own newly emboldened rebels - and then simply to claim that he tried, whilst privately celebrating that this unworkable Bill never made it to an Act of law?
The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
Have they ? I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
I suggest that it's highly unlikely this policy would make any difference, and that you are ignorant of what the judgment said.
In any event, government bothered to legislate, this particular case wouldn't have arisen. If you do something by administrative fiat, then you invite judicial scrutiny; that is how our system works. If you're happy to see ministers to exercise powers unchecked by the courts, then you invite authoritarianism.
I believe our Courts should have jurisdiction over our laws
We abide by the will of a raft of international legal bodies. What you are proposing is we withdraw from polite international society like Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Are you frustrated, like Johnson, that domestically, Lefty Lawyers are undermining the rule of law by our democratically elected Government? That being so, perhaps only judges loyal to the Government should preside over cases with political impacts, like Trump's America, and Putin's Russia.
What "polite international society" courts rule over domestic laws of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and other polite civilized nations?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing more than an accident of geography, there is absolutely no reason for us to be bound to any European institutions as opposed to global standards.
What about United Nations Conventions?
They're considered. The High Court and court of Appeal felt those were not strong enough reasons to stop the flight.
And the Supreme Court.
That would be the end of it for almost any other civilised common law nation, yet some here seem to object to the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law in this nation. 🤔
OK so who sovereignly passed what sovereign bit of legislation which gives the echr jurisdiction here? Are you saying the Crown in Parliament is not sovereign enough for you and you would rather see these things decided in Brussels?
Who did out of interest.
Human Rights Act 1998 was the start of ECHR jurisdiction.
There was a very attractively shot commercial by a director called Howard Guard in the 90's which showed a series of images of young children who then turned out to be famous adults. All were refugees. One that I remember was Einstein and there there was a scene on a Penny Farthing bicycle. I can't remember who the ad was for other than that it was for a refugee service.
I don't suppose anyone can remember the ad or who it was for?
World Refugee Council perhaps
Found it! It was a Cinema Commercial for UNHCR with the soundtrack 'Where Have all the flowers Gone' sung by Marlene Dietrich. Unfortunately I can't locate the film itself but when I do I'll post it on here. Very moving.
Once Rwanda policy has done its basic job of getting Johnson through to summer recess by distracting from parties and lies, the government could end up with a policy that is popular with its red wall voters but they can't implement because they are so crap.
I suspect Farage is warming up his engines of wrath.
Yep. The one thing they have forgotten is that if they rev the hate up enough and then fail to appease the mob, others will step in to do so. The Nigel has been on it with regards to boats all the way through, so it wouldn't be difficult for him to come back and campaign on the issue.
The return of even a few more percentage points of a vote to their Right would be the stake in the heart of this government. That's why it will not, under any circumstances, be allowed.
Perhaps the real gameplan is to lose the Bill - perhaps at the hands of his own newly emboldened rebels - and then simply to claim that he tried, whilst privately celebrating that this unworkable Bill never made it to an Act of law?
We tried to do an illegal thing. And it didn't work. Again. Vote for me.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
I suspect yesterday's farce will help the Conservative party.A line up of lefty lawyers,Starmer and a bunch of lefty Bishops are batting for the other side. It would be hard to pick a better opposition from the Conservative party point of view.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
This line being wheeled out by ministers on Protocol “they would prefer a negotiated settlement” is what I suspect they'll point to when UKG ultimately stands down/softens its demands vis EU. The alternative is trade war/even worse econ situation running into elections in 2024 1/
As we'll see from 🇪🇺 statement today, @trussliz has spectacularly miscalculated the EU's response. Rather than force movement from Bxl/capitals - she has simply stiffened the EU's resolve. But Truss has arguably miscalculated domestic politics too 2/
Her handling of this issue has clearly reinforced the desire of moderate Tories to block her leadership ambitions. There's a good chance now of a co-ordinated “stop Truss” movement among Tory MPs that would have a very good chance of succeeding if there was a leadership race 3/
Any other leader - except for Truss, who's heavily invested in Bill - will soften UKG stance & negotiate a deal. In my view that includes @BorisJohnson. This is not 2019. He joins battle with the EU this time around from a position of serious weakness - not strength ENDS
As I understand it, there was some optimism initially at the EU that Truss was coming in with a different approach. But that has evaporated, and they will now just sit on their hands and let UKGov thrash around until there is a change in administration.
As I understand it, there was some optimism initially at the EU that Truss was coming in with a different approach. But that has evaporated, and they will now just sit on their hands and let UKGov thrash around until there is a change in administration.
Liberals have got to stop being so scared of the Government. Yes they're trying wedge issues because they haven't got anything else to talk about. Scott Morrison did the same, with the same advisers, and he just got stuffed. It's not genius it's desperation. https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1537001107309965314
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Once Rwanda policy has done its basic job of getting Johnson through to summer recess by distracting from parties and lies, the government could end up with a policy that is popular with its red wall voters but they can't implement because they are so crap.
I suspect Farage is warming up his engines of wrath.
Yep. The one thing they have forgotten is that if they rev the hate up enough and then fail to appease the mob, others will step in to do so. The Nigel has been on it with regards to boats all the way through, so it wouldn't be difficult for him to come back and campaign on the issue.
The return of even a few more percentage points of a vote to their Right would be the stake in the heart of this government. That's why it will not, under any circumstances, be allowed.
How do they stop it? They are making increasingly silly promises and laying out policies designed not to stop people coming in illegally. That there is *no* legal way for them to come here means that they will keep coming illegally.
So having made mad promises they can't keep, *someone* will step in and say "I can do this" or even "don't vote for these failures".
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Hang on. HY is acting Archbishop of Epping and not only does he say the policy is moral, he also says these "small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days" you speak of aren't actually Christians anyway.
Re Rwanda. One particular context no-one seems interested in.
According to the UNHCR there are 127,000 refugees in Rwanda already, and the country receives substantial HCR support for its refugee programme. The UNHCR seems to make no suggestion that it is an unsuitable venue for refugeees.
The question must arise as to what rights are conferred upon a person simply by virtue of the fact that they have managed to arrive at a rich bit of the world. If it does confer rights that is very obviously discriminatory towards those who by age, gender, infirmity etc can't do so.
These are hard questions.
BTW this is what UNHCR supported refugee sites might look like:
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Hang on. HY is acting Archbishop of Epping and not only does he say the policy is moral, he also says these "small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days" you speak of aren't actually Christians anyway.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Perhaps. I wonder how this intersects with charity? From my experience, food banks wouldn't exist at all without committed Christians (and other religions) and lefties. It's a rare point of contact between two groups. In fact. I couldn't name a food bank volunteer from dozens, who wasn't one or the other, or both
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Hang on. HY is acting Archbishop of Epping and not only does he say the policy is moral, he also says these "small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days" you speak of aren't actually Christians anyway.
They can complain all they like Scott, they don't have jurisdiction over the UK anymore, because we left remember?
There are certain aspects of the NIP that come under the 'European Court', and others that come under the dispute resolution process. I think Sefcovic is sabre-rattling to make the former sound far more important than it may actually be. He's all about rhetoric.
EuCo squealing about "serious breaches of international law" etc is the Brussels playbook in any dispute, whether it is true or not. See fishing disputes with Norway and the Faroes, for example.
IMO The strongest point for Brussels is that they are competent at being a procedural bureaucracy, at which BJ is a divot.
So far BJ is the Grand Old Duke of York. I wonder if he has chosen the right hill?
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Much truth in this. SFAICS this group turned up to vote - only just - for TM because she was one of them and Jezza was the alternative; turned up in force to make sure Brexit got done because that's democracy, and Jezza was kept out; and now form part of the core group of usually Tories who no longer think that Boris is a grown up William Brown and prefer a boring social democrat/liberal democrat to a selfish womanising slob.
Though I should think Augustus Carp and Simeon Whey still vote Tory.
Liberals have got to stop being so scared of the Government. Yes they're trying wedge issues because they haven't got anything else to talk about. Scott Morrison did the same, with the same advisers, and he just got stuffed. It's not genius it's desperation. https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1537001107309965314
Yes Don't quite get the Aussie playbook. It just flopped rather seriously. Maybe there is no Plan B? For any of us?
Very, very good news for Johnson if national conversation shifts to immigration, human rights lawyers etc. This is a great example of 'vice signalling' (maybe Stephen Bush coined the term?)... it's lovely theatre to get people wound up about and show that the government are being 'tough' TM.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Hang on. HY is acting Archbishop of Epping and not only does he say the policy is moral, he also says these "small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days" you speak of aren't actually Christians anyway.
(Sorry, but who is HY??)
HYUFD
Ah thanks! Well, if your precis of his views is accurate, then there's another example of the group being belittled and dismissed. And as DixieDean points out, it's Christians manning lots of the food banks etc. I am simply suggesting that offending and ignoring such a large, usually inert, voting cohort is not good politics.
I find the business service spam that we get quite revealing - shipping from China by air freight appears to have collapsed judging by the offers I'm currently getting from freight forwarders....
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
So year to date the price of oil has gone up 73%, and the value of the pound to the dollar has dropped 11%. No wonder pump prices are going from *stupid* to *really stupid*.
Any chance the government are focused on this crisis this morning...?
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Much truth in this. SFAICS this group turned up to vote - only just - for TM because she was one of them and Jezza was the alternative; turned up in force to make sure Brexit got done because that's democracy, and Jezza was kept out; and now form part of the core group of usually Tories who no longer think that Boris is a grown up William Brown and prefer a boring social democrat/liberal democrat to a selfish womanising slob.
Though I should think Augustus Carp and Simeon Whey still vote Tory.
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
Yes it does, under the policy introduced by the Australian Labor Party's Kevin Rudd those who are processed overseas are not permitted to be resettled in Australia. If they are found to be legitimate refugees, then they can be granted asylum in PNG etc instead.
So year to date the price of oil has gone up 73%, and the value of the pound to the dollar has dropped 11%. No wonder pump prices are going from *stupid* to *really stupid*.
Any chance the government are focused on this crisis this morning...?
The rumours are coming out of the Fed, that they’re seriously considering a full percentage point raise in interest rates tonight. 75bps remains the forecast from most analysts, which is quickly getting priced into the currency markets.
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
Because the ECHR that exists now is a failed, major, self-serving, unelected bureaucracy that has gotten out of hand that has next to nothing to do with the ECHR that Churchill created.
What European Court had jurisdiction over the UK and the ECHR when Churchill was PM?
What European Court ever found against the UK on the ECHR while Churchill was even alive?
What European Court found against anyone else for that matter while Churchill was alive.
The ECHR should be brought back to Churchill's ECHR. A list of rights that are enshrined and protected by our own courts.
So year to date the price of oil has gone up 73%, and the value of the pound to the dollar has dropped 11%. No wonder pump prices are going from *stupid* to *really stupid*.
Any chance the government are focused on this crisis this morning...?
Nope - equally though it's probably best if they don't do anything to solve the crisis as their solution will inevitably make things worse rather than better.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
Yes it does, under the policy introduced by the Australian Labor Party's Kevin Rudd those who are processed overseas are not permitted to be resettled in Australia. If they are found to be legitimate refugees, then they can be granted asylum in PNG etc instead.
It doesn't deport them though. The asylum seekers never set foot in Australia, they are picked up and kept extraterratorially.
I suspect yesterday's farce will help the Conservative party.A line up of lefty lawyers,Starmer and a bunch of lefty Bishops are batting for the other side. It would be hard to pick a better opposition from the Conservative party point of view.
+1
It's always surprising how willing Conservatives are to self define as c*nts.
I find the business service spam that we get quite revealing - shipping from China by air freight appears to have collapsed judging by the offers I'm currently getting from freight forwarders....
I ordered something from aliexpress recently (cheap computer box to act as a firewall (the design hasn't hit europe yet) - and was surprised when it arrived within a week
So year to date the price of oil has gone up 73%, and the value of the pound to the dollar has dropped 11%. No wonder pump prices are going from *stupid* to *really stupid*.
Any chance the government are focused on this crisis this morning...?
The rumours are coming out of the Fed, that they’re seriously considering a full percentage point raise in interest rates tonight. 75bps remains the forecast from most analysts, which is quickly getting priced into the currency markets.
Yep. The exchange rate will continue to get worse. So its time that this government took action. Why are we having to trade BRITISH oil in a foreign currency? If we trade Brent Crude in pounds we knock that 11% back off. And because we are brilliant we can change the measures to something people don't understand so that the price goes even lower.
Very, very good news for Johnson if national conversation shifts to immigration, human rights lawyers etc. This is a great example of 'vice signalling' (maybe Stephen Bush coined the term?)... it's lovely theatre to get people wound up about and show that the government are being 'tough' TM.
That only works if the supposedly "tough" policies are not perceived as stupidly conceived and incompetently enacted.
Morning all Sell shares in waistcoats and totally clueless manager tart fannies. Buy buy buy ginger Yorkshire beards and the summer game. On thread. Con GAIN a percent or 2 which will be dwarfed by the losses as the economy/pound collapses from under us. Theres a 'black' prefix a-coming boys!
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
So year to date the price of oil has gone up 73%, and the value of the pound to the dollar has dropped 11%. No wonder pump prices are going from *stupid* to *really stupid*.
Any chance the government are focused on this crisis this morning...?
Nope - equally though it's probably best if they don't do anything to solve the crisis as their solution will inevitably make things worse rather than better.
In general, it would be best if the Government continue to follow a policy of shouting loudly about the horrors and iniquities they see everywhere, and then not actually doing anything. The closer they get to doing something, the worse the outcome.
ETA: It's probably electorally best for them, too.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Much truth in this. SFAICS this group turned up to vote - only just - for TM because she was one of them and Jezza was the alternative; turned up in force to make sure Brexit got done because that's democracy, and Jezza was kept out; and now form part of the core group of usually Tories who no longer think that Boris is a grown up William Brown and prefer a boring social democrat/liberal democrat to a selfish womanising slob.
Though I should think Augustus Carp and Simeon Whey still vote Tory.
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
Because the ECHR that exists now is a failed, major, self-serving, unelected bureaucracy that has gotten out of hand that has next to nothing to do with the ECHR that Churchill created.
What European Court had jurisdiction over the UK and the ECHR when Churchill was PM?
What European Court ever found against the UK on the ECHR while Churchill was even alive?
What European Court found against anyone else for that matter while Churchill was alive.
The ECHR should be brought back to Churchill's ECHR. A list of rights that are enshrined and protected by our own courts.
They established the Council of Europe - with the UK a founder member - in 1949. And then the Court in 1959. The idea that we have had something imposed on us laughably wrong.
Literally the point in creating this was that a national court *cannot* act in contravention of the Convention. If national courts can pick and choose which bits they want to accept then it is not a universal treaty is it?
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
Yes it does, under the policy introduced by the Australian Labor Party's Kevin Rudd those who are processed overseas are not permitted to be resettled in Australia. If they are found to be legitimate refugees, then they can be granted asylum in PNG etc instead.
PNG has been seeking to end its involvement in offshore processing for years. The Australian-run detention centre on PNG’s Manus Island was found to be illegal and ordered shut by the PNG supreme court in 2016 and Australia forced to pay $70m in compensation to those unlawfully detained.
However, 124 asylum seekers and refugees remain held in PNG, mainly in Port Moresby. Eighty-eight of those men have had their claims for protection formally recognised.
Those still held in PNG will be allowed to transfer to Nauru if they choose, according to a joint statement from the Australian home affairs minister, Karen Andrews, and the PNG immigration minister, Westly Nukundj...
Are the ECHR Tories in disguise? There would have been a lot of cheers in Number 10 tonight.
Why? Every voter in the land knows there was only 4 people on the plane before ECHR stepped in. The fault lies squarely with a government who have entered this far into this without a clear idea who they can and can’t put into this system. 🙂
That's not the point, British law and due process is inconvenient for the government but its our due process not some unelected unaccountable body. High Court judgement of Justice Swift makes it clear this should be a matter of government policy.
But it is the point - I was referring to a policy that is not working, referring to the fact the Tories haven’t had a working immigration policy for years now, despite promising one. This is exactly the point which brought us here. 🙂
I was referring to The voters knowing the government doesn’t have an immigration policy that works - right across the board, from food producers planting less because they can’t grow more because of government hard line on FOM, to boat people in the Channel or in trucks, the government hasn’t had a working immigration policy for years.
And to touch on where you tried to steer it, the party that talked up parliament taking back control, kept this policy out of Parliament (where they would have lost) and in Whitehall on a technicality, and are on the way to their half baked policy being declared illegal in the courts - hopefully for their sake before anyones flown to Africa, because Home Secretary has already promised the courts she will fly them all back, which is about minus ten off Tories in opinion polls if it comes to that.
I suspect yesterday's farce will help the Conservative party.A line up of lefty lawyers,Starmer and a bunch of lefty Bishops are batting for the other side. It would be hard to pick a better opposition from the Conservative party point of view.
Indeed.
Labour needs to learn to mostly ignore stories like this, which energise the Guardian readers but matter little in the grand scheme of things, and concentrate all their efforts on cost of living.
Petrol is still £1.80 a litre, and what will the government do about it?
Yes, quite. The key Opposition argument is that the Government keeps getting distracted by fringe issues and ignoring the problems of everyday living for most people. From woke to Rwanda to cervixes to ECHR, people mostly have an opinion but they don't see them as central to their lives, and a Government that is preoccupied with such matters will be seen as ultimately irrelevant - even if they win majority support on every single one of them.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
Yes it does, under the policy introduced by the Australian Labor Party's Kevin Rudd those who are processed overseas are not permitted to be resettled in Australia. If they are found to be legitimate refugees, then they can be granted asylum in PNG etc instead.
It doesn't deport them though. The asylum seekers never set foot in Australia, they are picked up and kept extraterratorially.
Yes it does. If they land in Australia then they are flown offshore and are never permitted to return.
Very few make it to land in Australia, because the policy works as a deterrent, but it isn't a case that if you make it to Australian soil then you are allowed to remain.
Probably the best thing to stop migration, could be to provide a free, safe channel crossing. In one stroke you remove the financial incentives for trafficking.
The service would have to start in the country of origin and the population of the UK would double in the first year. Good idea though
So year to date the price of oil has gone up 73%, and the value of the pound to the dollar has dropped 11%. No wonder pump prices are going from *stupid* to *really stupid*.
Any chance the government are focused on this crisis this morning...?
The rumours are coming out of the Fed, that they’re seriously considering a full percentage point raise in interest rates tonight. 75bps remains the forecast from most analysts, which is quickly getting priced into the currency markets.
Yep. The exchange rate will continue to get worse. So its time that this government took action. Why are we having to trade BRITISH oil in a foreign currency? If we trade Brent Crude in pounds we knock that 11% back off. And because we are brilliant we can change the measures to something people don't understand so that the price goes even lower.
The pound is actually up slightly against the dollar this morning
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Hang on. HY is acting Archbishop of Epping and not only does he say the policy is moral, he also says these "small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days" you speak of aren't actually Christians anyway.
(Sorry, but who is HY??)
Are you knew here? Welcome!
HY is short for HYFUD, a virulently passionate Tory, defender of the faith, and the last known believer in Boris Johnson.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Hang on. HY is acting Archbishop of Epping and not only does he say the policy is moral, he also says these "small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days" you speak of aren't actually Christians anyway.
It makes the Government look incompetent and impotent at the same time; especially as on good weather days the small boats will keep coming, Rwanda policy or not.
I still don't know what happens to the asylum seekers sent to Rwanda that may subsequently get rejected. Do we receive them back? Or do Rwanda have to deal with them.
Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.
I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.
It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...
Wrong, wrong, right, right.
Rather than talk about other posters on here, what would you do to stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?
Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.
I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.
It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...
Wrong, wrong, right, right.
Rather than talk about other posters on here, what would you do to stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?
Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.
I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.
It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...
Wrong, wrong, right, right.
Rather than talk about other posters on here, what would you do to stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?
like the tories, nothing but minus the taxi service and five star treatment after being chauffeured across.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
Yes it does, under the policy introduced by the Australian Labor Party's Kevin Rudd those who are processed overseas are not permitted to be resettled in Australia. If they are found to be legitimate refugees, then they can be granted asylum in PNG etc instead.
It’s all coming apart Bart, as I warned you. You are on the wrong side of this one.
This government has not had a working Immigration Policy for years, and still hasn’t.
At least you and government are set for a win on changing the NIP Though 👍🏻
Irrespective of your personal view on the Rwanda plan, the optics & sequencing of this are Textbook Johnson. Railing against the bureaucrats to try & deliver a policy that is v popular among his realigned Conservative electorate. These are the issues that could keep him in power."
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Hang on. HY is acting Archbishop of Epping and not only does he say the policy is moral, he also says these "small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days" you speak of aren't actually Christians anyway.
(Sorry, but who is HY??)
Are you knew here? Welcome!
HY is short for HYFUD, a virulently passionate Tory, defender of the faith, and the last known believer in Boris Johnson.
Many thanks. Technically a returner - I was far too active here when the site was new. I attended several of the early get-togethers (indeed, I even helped organise a couple) but I don't recognise many of the names nowadays, so I am having to play myself in slowly.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
There's a really interesting divide here between people who
1. see BTC as some kind of decentralized moral crusade against fiat currencies [nice idea] 2. see BTC as some kind of highly volatile get rich quick scheme [yes, that's in the nature of ponzi schemes for early adopters] 3. see BTC as a morally bankrupt devourer of resources and global contributor to environmental catastrophe, with no value outside of its own ecosystem [which is undeniably the case]
I'd say 80% of the rampers are of the second type, and 20% the first. Of the 80%, there are too few who are yet terrified about the value of their "investment", and are still in "double down on the dip" mode.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Hang on. HY is acting Archbishop of Epping and not only does he say the policy is moral, he also says these "small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days" you speak of aren't actually Christians anyway.
(Sorry, but who is HY??)
Are you knew here? Welcome!
HY is short for HYFUD, a virulently passionate Tory, defender of the faith, and the last known believer in Boris Johnson.
Many thanks. Technically a returner - I was far too active here when the site was new. I attended several of the early get-togethers (indeed, I even helped organise a couple) but I don't recognise many of the names nowadays, so I am having to play myself in slowly.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
There's a really interesting divide here between people who
1. see BTC as some kind of decentralized moral crusade against fiat currencies [nice idea] 2. see BTC as some kind of highly volatile get rich quick scheme [yes, that's in the nature of ponzi schemes for early adopters] 3. see BTC as a morally bankrupt devourer of resources and global contributor to environmental catastrophe, with no value outside of its own ecosystem [which is undeniably the case]
I'd say 80% of the rampers are of the second type, and 20% the first. Of the 80%, there are too few who are yet terrified about the value of their "investment", and are still in "double down on the dip" mode.
A decentralised moral crusade against fiat currencies would be a nice idea in theory, but its not BTC.
The fact that fiat currencies have issues is undeniably true, and there is a meaningful hedge against them that actually exists and is actually real and not a scam, and that is gold.
BTC is not gold. Its not even pyrite. Endorsing bitcoin because you don't like fiat, is like endorsing climbing Everest in the nude because you don't like Ibiza.
So year to date the price of oil has gone up 73%, and the value of the pound to the dollar has dropped 11%. No wonder pump prices are going from *stupid* to *really stupid*.
Any chance the government are focused on this crisis this morning...?
The rumours are coming out of the Fed, that they’re seriously considering a full percentage point raise in interest rates tonight. 75bps remains the forecast from most analysts, which is quickly getting priced into the currency markets.
But Is there a difference between slower increases over time based on foresight, big jumps in short space based on lack of foresight?
Or put another one, is their inherent vice in bigger increases over shorter space of time.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
There's a really interesting divide here between people who
1. see BTC as some kind of decentralized moral crusade against fiat currencies [nice idea] 2. see BTC as some kind of highly volatile get rich quick scheme [yes, that's in the nature of ponzi schemes for early adopters] 3. see BTC as a morally bankrupt devourer of resources and global contributor to environmental catastrophe, with no value outside of its own ecosystem [which is undeniably the case]
I'd say 80% of the rampers are of the second type, and 20% the first. Of the 80%, there are too few who are yet terrified about the value of their "investment", and are still in "double down on the dip" mode.
A decentralised moral crusade against fiat currencies would be a nice idea in theory, but its not BTC.
The fact that fiat currencies have issues is undeniably true, and there is a meaningful hedge against them that actually exists and is actually real and not a scam, and that is gold.
BTC is not gold. Its not even pyrite. Endorsing bitcoin because you don't like fiat, is like endorsing climbing Everest in the nude because you don't like Ibiza.
I completely agree - in fact, I originally wrote [nice idea, but it isn't that] until I realised I couldn't be bothered to explain myself and left that as an exercise to the reader
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Much truth in this. SFAICS this group turned up to vote - only just - for TM because she was one of them and Jezza was the alternative; turned up in force to make sure Brexit got done because that's democracy, and Jezza was kept out; and now form part of the core group of usually Tories who no longer think that Boris is a grown up William Brown and prefer a boring social democrat/liberal democrat to a selfish womanising slob.
Though I should think Augustus Carp and Simeon Whey still vote Tory.
Algarkirk .... or Carkeek?
I am just returned from transferring my worship to St James-the- Lesser-Still, Peckham Rye.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
Lol, ok boomer
Apart from the fact I'm a Millenial, that's just a dumb reply.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the technology and choose to make deliberately provocative nonsense posts like "it would still be expensive at $1"
Contrast that with RCS1000s fairly measured take where he worked out a value of (I think it was around) $1500 based on transaction volume and throughput.
You're just hysterical and seem to have an irrational hatred for bitcoin that I find amusing, to say the least. It's not going to $1. Maybe it's going to $1500. Maybe not.
But either way, I'm not inclined to listen to Peter Schiff's bad takes, when he's been proven hilariously wrong so many times, as the 2018 tweet I shared with you demonstrates.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Hang on. HY is acting Archbishop of Epping and not only does he say the policy is moral, he also says these "small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days" you speak of aren't actually Christians anyway.
(Sorry, but who is HY??)
Are you knew here? Welcome!
HY is short for HYFUD, a virulently passionate Tory, defender of the faith, and the last known believer in Boris Johnson.
Many thanks. Technically a returner - I was far too active here when the site was new. I attended several of the early get-togethers (indeed, I even helped organise a couple) but I don't recognise many of the names nowadays, so I am having to play myself in slowly.
Welcome back! You're from before my time.
Very interesting observations re the congregations.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
There's a really interesting divide here between people who
1. see BTC as some kind of decentralized moral crusade against fiat currencies [nice idea] 2. see BTC as some kind of highly volatile get rich quick scheme [yes, that's in the nature of ponzi schemes for early adopters] 3. see BTC as a morally bankrupt devourer of resources and global contributor to environmental catastrophe, with no value outside of its own ecosystem [which is undeniably the case]
I'd say 80% of the rampers are of the second type, and 20% the first. Of the 80%, there are too few who are yet terrified about the value of their "investment", and are still in "double down on the dip" mode.
A decentralised moral crusade against fiat currencies would be a nice idea in theory, but its not BTC.
The fact that fiat currencies have issues is undeniably true, and there is a meaningful hedge against them that actually exists and is actually real and not a scam, and that is gold.
BTC is not gold. Its not even pyrite. Endorsing bitcoin because you don't like fiat, is like endorsing climbing Everest in the nude because you don't like Ibiza.
I completely agree - in fact, I originally wrote [nice idea, but it isn't that] until I realised I couldn't be bothered to explain myself and left that as an exercise to the reader
The massive red flag was the number of your Type 2s getting involved in the market.
Mostly people who, five years ago, would have been selling timeshares in Majorca, and who will shout “buy the dip” and “hodl hodl hodl” while tapping on their phone to place their sell orders.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
The more heat a debate provokes, the more likely it is to shift votes (woolies made up rule 101 or some such) Johnson has been losing some of the Brexit coalition to undecided or will not vote. This kerfuffle will bring some of them back because, as we are constantly reminded, all thick racists innit. The antis are, generally, already not voting against the diet wary pooch. The heat within the debate here is because we all know this already and either think its terribly unfair or bloody right too. If Brexit is in part about immigration and leads to fat dog rule then 'europe' stopping dogs dealing with immigration (leaving aside practicality etc) will reignite that in part. Those that are motivated back to the Con camp by it wont give a shit that a % find this policy morally reprehensible. Because they don't.
Irrespective of your personal view on the Rwanda plan, the optics & sequencing of this are Textbook Johnson. Railing against the bureaucrats to try & deliver a policy that is v popular among his realigned Conservative electorate. These are the issues that could keep him in power."
I think this is true, but I don't think it will keep him in power, unless SKS and co manage to lose Labour as an option for centrist One Nation Tories to lend their votes, or at least lend their abstentions. He will also struggle to recover the Red Wall - as it was both the fresh popularity of Boris, the need for Brexit and the dire nature of Jezza that got it all in the first place.
Boris can't win (326 seats) without both much of the Red Wall staying and being tolerated by old Tories.
Irrespective of your personal view on the Rwanda plan, the optics & sequencing of this are Textbook Johnson. Railing against the bureaucrats to try & deliver a policy that is v popular among his realigned Conservative electorate. These are the issues that could keep him in power."
🙂 You are thinking about short term game playing? I don’t think the government need that, they actually need a working policy after procrastinating on it all these years, as that in medium long term over next two years is what they will ultimately be judged on by the voters, don’t you agree?
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
I think you assume more uniformity than there is within church congregations. I'm part of a medium sized evangelical Anglican church, and we have people with quite a range of veiws on these sort of issues - there will definitely be people who don't think Rwanda is a good idea, but there are almost certainly others who would implement an Australian style policy tomorrow.
Personally I think an type Australian policy would be the best way forward, but I can't imagine the current idiots in government actually managing to make it work.
Comments
As we'll see from 🇪🇺 statement today, @trussliz has spectacularly miscalculated the EU's response. Rather than force movement from Bxl/capitals - she has simply stiffened the EU's resolve. But Truss has arguably miscalculated domestic politics too 2/
Her handling of this issue has clearly reinforced the desire of moderate Tories to block her leadership ambitions. There's a good chance now of a co-ordinated “stop Truss” movement among Tory MPs that would have a very good chance of succeeding if there was a leadership race 3/
Any other leader - except for Truss, who's heavily invested in Bill - will soften UKG stance & negotiate a deal. In my view that includes @BorisJohnson. This is not 2019. He joins battle with the EU this time around from a position of serious weakness - not strength
ENDS
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1536988508690305025
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
At what point are there no 'bigger mugs' available at any price?
It's going to be bitterly fought through parliament and is unlikely to make the statute book for some time.
Like the protocol itself, it appears to be an unworkable solution designed solely to buy the clown a bit more time. While he's pushing it he can claim to be doing something, even though nothing has changed, and even when/if it gets passed, nothing will have changed. Perhaps the real gameplan is to lose the Bill - perhaps at the hands of his own newly emboldened rebels - and then simply to claim that he tried, whilst privately celebrating that this unworkable Bill never made it to an Act of law?
The ECHR that exists today is not Churchill's ECHR.
That's why it will not, under any circumstances, be allowed.
and still the fanbois cheer...
Reading up a little on the UK process and the Dutch process, it does seem that lawyers are a part of the problem.
Simple eg the Dutch seem to do an age assessment on minors by XRay, whilst we have a small army of lawyers arguing that age assessments are traumatic for the claimant and therefore we shouldn't be doing them.
https://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Age-assessment-process.march_.2017.pdf
https://ind.nl/en/asylum-procedures-in-the-netherlands
(Yes, it's more complex than that, however...)
“NHS risks losing black and Asian doctors over ‘intolerable’ levels of racism”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/15/nhs-risks-losing-black-asian-doctors-racism-bma-report
I’m going to have a mad guess and say this is piffle
The British Isles have left the Roman Empire...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10918619/World-Health-Organization-rename-monkeypox-scientists-claimed-RACIST.html
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1537001107309965314
So having made mad promises they can't keep, *someone* will step in and say "I can do this" or even "don't vote for these failures".
According to the UNHCR there are 127,000 refugees in Rwanda already, and the country receives substantial HCR support for its refugee programme. The UNHCR seems to make no suggestion that it is an unsuitable venue for refugeees.
https://reporting.unhcr.org/rwanda#:~:text=As of September 2021, Rwanda,Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM).
The question must arise as to what rights are conferred upon a person simply by virtue of the fact that they have managed to arrive at a rich bit of the world. If it does confer rights that is very obviously discriminatory towards those who by age, gender, infirmity etc can't do so.
These are hard questions.
BTW this is what UNHCR supported refugee sites might look like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidi_Bidi_Refugee_Settlement#/media/File:Bidi_Bidi_settlement.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutupalong_refugee_camp#/media/File:Kutupalong_Refugee_Camp_(Maaz_Hussain-VOA).jpg
Mr. Carp, interesting comment.
A problem with politics can be that the noisy get much airtime but still only have one vote. Assessing the quiet is altogether harder.
I wonder how this intersects with charity?
From my experience, food banks wouldn't exist at all without committed Christians (and other religions) and lefties.
It's a rare point of contact between two groups.
In fact. I couldn't name a food bank volunteer from dozens, who wasn't one or the other, or both
This is the thing they are talking about reviving.
https://www.ft.com/content/80670e39-1b23-4714-a945-c3b0e3dd9b2f
EuCo squealing about "serious breaches of international law" etc is the Brussels playbook in any dispute, whether it is true or not. See fishing disputes with Norway and the Faroes, for example.
IMO The strongest point for Brussels is that they are competent at being a procedural bureaucracy, at which BJ is a divot.
So far BJ is the Grand Old Duke of York. I wonder if he has chosen the right hill?
Pass Truss's law and the incorporated UK law changes and the European Court loses its jurisdiction.
The EU can't complain to their own, foreign, court about having lost jurisdiction to rule over the UK, since it won't have jurisdiction.
Though I should think Augustus Carp and Simeon Whey still vote Tory.
Don't quite get the Aussie playbook. It just flopped rather seriously. Maybe there is no Plan B?
For any of us?
This is a great example of 'vice signalling' (maybe Stephen Bush coined the term?)... it's lovely theatre to get people wound up about and show that the government are being 'tough' TM.
And unChristian.
And unlawful.
All the things BoZo is already well known for...
https://twitter.com/cesigno/status/1536840444646137863
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1536838184360894464
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
Australia operates a legally dubious regime of forcible detention and processing of asylum seekers, offshore in foreign jurisdictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_Regional_Processing_Centre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Regional_Processing_Centre
It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
So year to date the price of oil has gone up 73%, and the value of the pound to the dollar has dropped 11%. No wonder pump prices are going from *stupid* to *really stupid*.
Any chance the government are focused on this crisis this morning...?
Algarkirk .... or Carkeek?
What European Court had jurisdiction over the UK and the ECHR when Churchill was PM?
What European Court ever found against the UK on the ECHR while Churchill was even alive?
What European Court found against anyone else for that matter while Churchill was alive.
The ECHR should be brought back to Churchill's ECHR. A list of rights that are enshrined and protected by our own courts.
Sell shares in waistcoats and totally clueless manager tart fannies. Buy buy buy ginger Yorkshire beards and the summer game.
On thread. Con GAIN a percent or 2 which will be dwarfed by the losses as the economy/pound collapses from under us. Theres a 'black' prefix a-coming boys!
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1066506512565223425
Like I say, a broken clock...
ETA: It's probably electorally best for them, too.
Literally the point in creating this was that a national court *cannot* act in contravention of the Convention. If national courts can pick and choose which bits they want to accept then it is not a universal treaty is it?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/06/australia-to-end-offshore-processing-in-papua-new-guinea
...Australia will end offshore processing on Papua New Guinea by the end of the year, leaving Nauru as its sole regional processing centre.
PNG has been seeking to end its involvement in offshore processing for years. The Australian-run detention centre on PNG’s Manus Island was found to be illegal and ordered shut by the PNG supreme court in 2016 and Australia forced to pay $70m in compensation to those unlawfully detained.
However, 124 asylum seekers and refugees remain held in PNG, mainly in Port Moresby. Eighty-eight of those men have had their claims for protection formally recognised.
Those still held in PNG will be allowed to transfer to Nauru if they choose, according to a joint statement from the Australian home affairs minister, Karen Andrews, and the PNG immigration minister, Westly Nukundj...
I was referring to The voters knowing the government doesn’t have an immigration policy that works - right across the board, from food producers planting less because they can’t grow more because of government hard line on FOM, to boat people in the Channel or in trucks, the government hasn’t had a working immigration policy for years.
And to touch on where you tried to steer it, the party that talked up parliament taking back control, kept this policy out of Parliament (where they would have lost) and in Whitehall on a technicality, and are on the way to their half baked policy being declared illegal in the courts - hopefully for their sake before anyones flown to Africa, because Home Secretary has already promised the courts she will fly them all back, which is about minus ten off Tories in opinion polls if it comes to that.
Very few make it to land in Australia, because the policy works as a deterrent, but it isn't a case that if you make it to Australian soil then you are allowed to remain.
It would still be expensive at $1.
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
HY is short for HYFUD, a virulently passionate Tory, defender of the faith, and the last known believer in Boris Johnson.
The EU taking legal action on the NI Protocol plays to the same mindset too
This government has not had a working Immigration Policy for years, and still hasn’t.
At least you and government are set for a win on changing the NIP Though 👍🏻
@GoodwinMJ
Irrespective of your personal view on the Rwanda plan, the optics & sequencing of this are Textbook Johnson. Railing against the bureaucrats to try & deliver a policy that is v popular among his realigned Conservative electorate. These are the issues that could keep him in power."
1. see BTC as some kind of decentralized moral crusade against fiat currencies [nice idea]
2. see BTC as some kind of highly volatile get rich quick scheme [yes, that's in the nature of ponzi schemes for early adopters]
3. see BTC as a morally bankrupt devourer of resources and global contributor to environmental catastrophe, with no value outside of its own ecosystem [which is undeniably the case]
I'd say 80% of the rampers are of the second type, and 20% the first. Of the 80%, there are too few who are yet terrified about the value of their "investment", and are still in "double down on the dip" mode.
The fact that fiat currencies have issues is undeniably true, and there is a meaningful hedge against them that actually exists and is actually real and not a scam, and that is gold.
BTC is not gold. Its not even pyrite. Endorsing bitcoin because you don't like fiat, is like endorsing climbing Everest in the nude because you don't like Ibiza.
Or put another one, is their inherent vice in bigger increases over shorter space of time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovIly_QFRiw
Contrast that with RCS1000s fairly measured take where he worked out a value of (I think it was around) $1500 based on transaction volume and throughput.
You're just hysterical and seem to have an irrational hatred for bitcoin that I find amusing, to say the least. It's not going to $1. Maybe it's going to $1500. Maybe not.
But either way, I'm not inclined to listen to Peter Schiff's bad takes, when he's been proven hilariously wrong so many times, as the 2018 tweet I shared with you demonstrates.
Very interesting observations re the congregations.
Mostly people who, five years ago, would have been selling timeshares in Majorca, and who will shout “buy the dip” and “hodl hodl hodl” while tapping on their phone to place their sell orders.
Johnson has been losing some of the Brexit coalition to undecided or will not vote. This kerfuffle will bring some of them back because, as we are constantly reminded, all thick racists innit. The antis are, generally, already not voting against the diet wary pooch.
The heat within the debate here is because we all know this already and either think its terribly unfair or bloody right too.
If Brexit is in part about immigration and leads to fat dog rule then 'europe' stopping dogs dealing with immigration (leaving aside practicality etc) will reignite that in part.
Those that are motivated back to the Con camp by it wont give a shit that a % find this policy morally reprehensible. Because they don't.
He will also struggle to recover the Red Wall - as it was both the fresh popularity of Boris, the need for Brexit and the dire nature of Jezza that got it all in the first place.
Boris can't win (326 seats) without both much of the Red Wall staying and being tolerated by old Tories.
Personally I think an type Australian policy would be the best way forward, but I can't imagine the current idiots in government actually managing to make it work.