The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
One would hope and expect so. In which case, why didn’t they just do this from the start? As it is obviously quicker and easier for all?
Suggests the decision to send Brits through the Rest of the World Gates was pointless spite, now overwhelmed by reality
Well that decision to force Brits to use the RoW inspector was undoubtedly political.
But with the e-gates, don't forget they're all made by different companies, and some of them are EEA only, and some can handle many countries, and almost certainly depend on bilateral information sharing agreements. In Switzerland, the e-gates were for EEA + Japan + Canada. In Rome, for EEA + UK + Canada + US.
The new machines in Portugal will also apparently handle UK too.
Isn't it the decision of the individual country, and doesn't it depend
In which case a no brainer for poorer Club Med countries who want British business. I had no idea that UK travelers make 18 MILLION trips to Spain in a normal year. Huge sums of money
The job of putting e-gates at every single EU international border crossing is going to be immense. Think of all the Greek islands, all the ports in Italy, every marina in Spain, every little aIrport anywhere
You've got to understand, these anti abortion laws are not written in good faith.
They aren't about protecting the life of the unborn, they are about punishing women for having a uterus.
The exceptions are drafted to be deliberately ambiguous and to expose medical professionals to potential prosecution so as to dissuade any abortions from occuring no matter what the medical risk to the pregnant person.
For Roman Catholics and Protestant evangelicals they are very much written in good faith to protect the unborn. They are quite happy for women to use their uterus to produce good Roman Catholic or evangelical children
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I have known many feminists (and many more women), and I have rarely heard anyone argue for 'Always allow it'. I have heard many anti-abortionists say 'never allow it under any circumstances'). Although that might just be the ones I have met.
We had this debate the other day. There are some ‘always allow it’ extreme pro-choicers in the USA. Indeed polls suggest it could be as high as ~19% of Americans (tho like others here I doubt that, more like 5-10% maybe)
You rather mocked me for suggesting that 19% was too high, as I recall. But yes, agreed. It's a small minority position
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
Actually, I retract my remark. If the polls say that 19% of Americans are “always allow abortion” types then that’s what the poll says and I will believe it until given evidence otherwise
It is very poor PB form to pick and choose which bits of a poll to believe, simply because you don’t like one element of the results
And by "always allow abortion" many respondents are applying making a political-legal judgement NOT an ethical-moral judgement.
That is, they may well have personal doubts, qualms, caveats re: abortion BUT are unwilling see them used as legal impediments and political cudgels by anti-abortion ideologues and politicos.
Would also caution re: argument that primary motivation of anti-abortion leaders & movement is anti-woman. Because the heart and soul of the movement is DOMINATED by women.
Despite fact that most of their sisters do NOT concur. However, fact that from Phyllis Schlafly women have been front and center in the public fight against abortion means that the argument that anti-abortion is inherently anti-women just doesn't wash with ambivalent, swing voters.
Women can buy into patriarchal structures, though, for various reasons. In fact I'd say those structures depend on this to some extent.
You've got to understand, these anti abortion laws are not written in good faith.
They aren't about protecting the life of the unborn, they are about punishing women for having a uterus.
The exceptions are drafted to be deliberately ambiguous and to expose medical professionals to potential prosecution so as to dissuade any abortions from occuring no matter what the medical risk to the pregnant person.
For Roman Catholics and Protestant evangelicals they are very much written in good faith to protect the unborn. They are quite happy for women to use their uterus to produce good Roman Catholic or evangelical children
Then why don't many of the laws have explicit exceptions for ectopic pregnancies which are never viable?
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
One would hope and expect so. In which case, why didn’t they just do this from the start? As it is obviously quicker and easier for all?
Suggests the decision to send Brits through the Rest of the World Gates was pointless spite, now overwhelmed by reality
Well that decision to force Brits to use the RoW inspector was undoubtedly political.
But with the e-gates, don't forget they're all made by different companies, and some of them are EEA only, and some can handle many countries, and almost certainly depend on bilateral information sharing agreements. In Switzerland, the e-gates were for EEA + Japan + Canada. In Rome, for EEA + UK + Canada + US.
The new machines in Portugal will also apparently handle UK too.
Isn't it the decision of the individual country, and doesn't it depend
In which case a no brainer for poorer Club Med countries who want British business. I had no idea that UK travelers make 18 MILLION trips to Spain in a normal year. Huge sums of money
The job of putting e-gates at every single EU international border crossing is going to be immense. Think of all the Greek islands, all the ports in Italy, every marina in Spain, every little aIrport anywhere
Probably not more difficult than getting through Manchester Airport. But then, not many things are more difficult than getting through Manchester Airport.
I see today that the government's latest plan for housing is to introduce 50 year mortgages.
It just beggars belief. We have had 14 years since the financial crisis and we still seem unable or unwilling to deal with the fundamental problem with the British economy. What you might call the banking financial property complex. The solution to unaffordable housing is always to make credit more easily available. Is Starmer set to pounce and call this out for what it is? I'm not holding my breath. But before you pile in on Starmer have the Lib Dems said anything. Has Blair or any other elder statesman ever felt the need to comment?
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I have known many feminists (and many more women), and I have rarely heard anyone argue for 'Always allow it'. I have heard many anti-abortionists say 'never allow it under any circumstances'). Although that might just be the ones I have met.
We had this debate the other day. There are some ‘always allow it’ extreme pro-choicers in the USA. Indeed polls suggest it could be as high as ~19% of Americans (tho like others here I doubt that, more like 5-10% maybe)
You rather mocked me for suggesting that 19% was too high, as I recall. But yes, agreed. It's a small minority position
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
Actually, I retract my remark. If the polls say that 19% of Americans are “always allow abortion” types then that’s what the poll says and I will believe it until given evidence otherwise
It is very poor PB form to pick and choose which bits of a poll to believe, simply because you don’t like one element of the results
And by "always allow abortion" many respondents are applying making a political-legal judgement NOT an ethical-moral judgement.
That is, they may well have personal doubts, qualms, caveats re: abortion BUT are unwilling see them used as legal impediments and political cudgels by anti-abortion ideologues and politicos.
Would also caution re: argument that primary motivation of anti-abortion leaders & movement is anti-woman. Because the heart and soul of the movement is DOMINATED by women.
Despite fact that most of their sisters do NOT concur. However, fact that from Phyllis Schlafly women have been front and center in the public fight against abortion means that the argument that anti-abortion is inherently anti-women just doesn't wash with ambivalent, swing voters.
Agreed. I have read up, a tad, on the anti-abortion movement in the USA. They are not Taliban style misogynists. Generally they are very religious, quite sincere, and as you say: often female
And often raging hypocrites: they will one day be picketing and abortion clinic, the next day they will bring their teeneage child to the clinic to get and abortion and then turn up the following day to picket it again.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I have known many feminists (and many more women), and I have rarely heard anyone argue for 'Always allow it'. I have heard many anti-abortionists say 'never allow it under any circumstances'). Although that might just be the ones I have met.
We had this debate the other day. There are some ‘always allow it’ extreme pro-choicers in the USA. Indeed polls suggest it could be as high as ~19% of Americans (tho like others here I doubt that, more like 5-10% maybe)
You rather mocked me for suggesting that 19% was too high, as I recall. But yes, agreed. It's a small minority position
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
Actually, I retract my remark. If the polls say that 19% of Americans are “always allow abortion” types then that’s what the poll says and I will believe it until given evidence otherwise
It is very poor PB form to pick and choose which bits of a poll to believe, simply because you don’t like one element of the results
And by "always allow abortion" many respondents are applying making a political-legal judgement NOT an ethical-moral judgement.
That is, they may well have personal doubts, qualms, caveats re: abortion BUT are unwilling see them used as legal impediments and political cudgels by anti-abortion ideologues and politicos.
Would also caution re: argument that primary motivation of anti-abortion leaders & movement is anti-woman. Because the heart and soul of the movement is DOMINATED by women.
Despite fact that most of their sisters do NOT concur. However, fact that from Phyllis Schlafly women have been front and center in the public fight against abortion means that the argument that anti-abortion is inherently anti-women just doesn't wash with ambivalent, swing voters.
Agreed. I have read up, a tad, on the anti-abortion movement in the USA. They are not Taliban style misogynists. Generally they are very religious, quite sincere, and as you say: often female
And often raging hypocrites: they will one day be picketing and abortion clinic, the next day they will bring their teeneage child to the clinic to get and abortion and then turn up the following day to picket it again.
Given that our population pyramid is looking more like a population dadbod the idea of importing workers does not frighten or bother me. I don't want to see what happens when an increasingly small working-age population needs to support a large generation with complex needs and the political power to avoid any contribution.
On housing, frankly we need to smash the power of the NIMBYs. Completely gut the ability to object to new housing developments. Fuck your view, fuck your "village character", fuck your endless concern trolling. Pair that up with a legal requirement for developers to fund services (schools, GP surgeries, proper integrated community stuff) and a tax on land revaluation after usage change. Bang developer heads together and put a bullet in the NIMBYs, crash house prices into the ground and set up a relief fund funded the valuation tax to help out single home owners who suffer negative equity as a consequence.
Not that I expect any party to do something that might hurt the asset holding class.
This policy would be catastrophic. You just need to look at build costs to understand why. Build cost inflation is such that even building on green fields can quickly become unviable - that is even before you have tried to tax uplift. There would be no uplift to tax. A 100sqm house costs £200k to build (£2k/sqm) before the value of land, developer profit and planning gain is factored in to the equation. That is almost double what it was a decade ago but wage inflation has not risen in line with build cost inflation. Many families could not afford to buy a house even if it was sold to them at build cost.
The basic problem is with increases in the cost of materials, skilled labour and the imposition of new regulation that affects housebuilding.
That's very interesting. I didn't realise material costs had risen so much. What's behind it? Demand in East Asia?
Mega supply chain problems due to Covid.
However, there are definitely ways we can bring the costs of housing down, e.g. prefab/modular (to a much higher quality than it was back in the day).
If I had my way, I would pick a dozen sites across the UK and turn them into low construction cost pre-fab Levittowns, nimbys be damned. The only thing I would change is that I think we need to build higher density. The idea of everyone having a sprawling detached with garden and white picket fence just isn't practical for the UK.
These 'pre fab' solutions they serve the high end of the market and are more expensive than building with bricks. There are people in the UK who have built factories where houses can be made, but it is more expensive than the traditional form of construction.
You can buy a static caravan for about £1k / sqm. But this is not a permanent structure and does not comply with building regulations. It falls apart and becomes uninhabitable after 20 years. You would just be building shanty towns.
Can you point to an example of a prefab that would be of decent quality, please? Would be interested to see what it is like.
There's loads of it around. Countryside are a massive housebuilder and have a factory in the midlands where they build houses off site, the capacity is 3500 a year. They look no different to regular blockwork housing. The driver isn't price, it is pace and quality.
Correct; it's nothing new. And building timber frame in a factory never stopped in Scotland afaik eg Stuart Milne Group. Though I see that Stuart Milne himself is retiring.
Even down here Space4 have been doing offsite construction since 2000 in a large factory, and are now part of Persimmon.
Comments
https://spanishnewstoday.com/spain-urged-to-treat-uk-holidaymakers-as-eu-tourists_1768232-a.html
In which case a no brainer for poorer Club Med countries who want British business. I had no idea that UK travelers make 18 MILLION trips to Spain in a normal year. Huge sums of money
The job of putting e-gates at every single EU international border crossing is going to be immense. Think of all the Greek islands, all the ports in Italy, every marina in Spain, every little aIrport anywhere
It just beggars belief. We have had 14 years since the financial crisis and we still seem unable or unwilling to deal with the fundamental problem with the British economy. What you might call the banking financial property complex. The solution to unaffordable housing is always to make credit more easily available. Is Starmer set to pounce and call this out for what it is? I'm not holding my breath. But before you pile in on Starmer have the Lib Dems said anything. Has Blair or any other elder statesman ever felt the need to comment?
No idea where it is now.
Just about top have a home made pizza for supper.
No pineapple, so peach slices will suffice.
https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/
I noticed that Forest are back in the Premiership, I think. But that is all I have noticed in the last quarter.