“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull.
He couldn't have said that surely? Bit like the American state senate that tried to legislate that pi was exactly 3. Was he floating off into space as he declared the law of gravity didn't exist.
Oh, he did say that. The context was asking American tech companies to break web encryption.
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull.
He couldn't have said that surely? Bit like the American state senate that tried to legislate that pi was exactly 3. Was he floating off into space as he declared the law of gravity didn't exist.
He was referring to the War On Encryption.
Governments including the UK) have a policy of demanding a back door into commercial encryption. This is impossible to do without threatening the safety of just about everything online.
When told that the laws of mathematics say that the back door is a stupid idea....
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull.
He couldn't have said that surely? Bit like the American state senate that tried to legislate that pi was exactly 3. Was he floating off into space as he declared the law of gravity didn't exist.
He did, but it was more in the sense that "if you've designed an encryption that is mathematically unbreakable you have to stop using it" as far as I can tell.
The Indiana Pi Bill (which doesn't actually mention pi at all) is just weird.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
Um I genuinely don't understand what you were saying there. I think you started typing without actually engaging brain. Not the first time for you.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
Mr. Mark, practically every government in my lifetime has been atrocious on energy.
They could have a dozen Rolls Royce SMR reactors up and running by now, and exporting them overseas. Instead, the Americans have got first mover advantage on the deployment of the technology, so guess where the export orders will be going.
Do these actually exist outside PowerPoint? (I don't know.)
Everything nuclear seems to take forever and cost a fortune.
The idea behind these, which isn't entirely daft, is to take a proven design and make it on a production line. Looking at the Nuscale prices, they seem to be looking at power below the cost of that from large plants, which implies considerable savings on construction costs, as smaller plants are less efficient.
Obviously the economies only materialise if they sell scores of the things. Because of that, I'm not sure there's room for more than one player in the market.
As you say, it will take years to produce the first one, but the marginal costs of producing additional units ought to drop quickly - which would make ordering them an easier decision for governments.
Absolutely, although there’s probably room for two players.
It’s the difference between building 787s, and building Space Shuttles. See how SpaceX have revolutionised the cost of space flight, by production-lining rockets. See also how, having let them get a decade ahead on the technology, they now pretty much have a monopoly for commercial launches.
The biggest saving will be in the planning enquiries. Some green types have already been up in arms at the plan that the reactor design will be be reviewed once, and then the design won't be subject to an enquiry for every single installation after that.
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull.
He couldn't have said that surely? Bit like the American state senate that tried to legislate that pi was exactly 3. Was he floating off into space as he declared the law of gravity didn't exist.
He did, but it was more in the sense that "if you've designed an encryption that is mathematically unbreakable you have to stop using it" as far as I can tell.
The Indiana Pi Bill (which doesn't actually mention pi at all) is just weird.
Reminds me of a wonderful moment from On the Hour, about 1992: "Ukraine has declared its own laws of physics. Friction has been abolished, meaning Ukrainians will now travel indefinitely with just a single push".
Mr. Mark, practically every government in my lifetime has been atrocious on energy.
They could have a dozen Rolls Royce SMR reactors up and running by now, and exporting them overseas. Instead, the Americans have got first mover advantage on the deployment of the technology, so guess where the export orders will be going.
Do these actually exist outside PowerPoint? (I don't know.)
Everything nuclear seems to take forever and cost a fortune.
The idea behind these, which isn't entirely daft, is to take a proven design and make it on a production line. Looking at the Nuscale prices, they seem to be looking at power below the cost of that from large plants, which implies considerable savings on construction costs, as smaller plants are less efficient.
Obviously the economies only materialise if they sell scores of the things. Because of that, I'm not sure there's room for more than one player in the market.
As you say, it will take years to produce the first one, but the marginal costs of producing additional units ought to drop quickly - which would make ordering them an easier decision for governments.
Absolutely, although there’s probably room for two players.
It’s the difference between building 787s, and building Space Shuttles. See how SpaceX have revolutionised the cost of space flight, by production-lining rockets. See also how, having let them get a decade ahead on the technology, they now pretty much have a monopoly for commercial launches.
The biggest saving will be in the planning enquiries. Some green types have already been up in arms at the plan that the reactor design will be be reviewed once, and then the design won't be subject to an enquiry for every single installation after that.
Invasive species cause all sorts of damage to ecosystems that have developed without them. Overall they lead to a net loss of biodiversity, species extinction and damage to habitats.
But isn't that how nature works, with species rising and falling over time due to complex interactions. Is it desirable or even feasible to try to freeze evolution at whatever particular moment in time we decide to do it?
As for grey squirrels eating birds' nests or walnuts (cited in other posts), don't red squirrels do that too? Those objections seem to be more about disliking squirrels per se.
No. The reason grey squirrels outcompete reds is that they eat nuts and berries before they are ripe and before the Reds would do so. They live at higher population densities and do more damage to nesting birds than Reds.
Natural evolution does proceed with some species disappearing and others replacing them, but the introduction of grey squirrels was artificial, so removing them is to remove our previous interference. It's not about trying to prevent any natural change.
Essentially all our interference and habitat destruction is creating another mass extinction event, which will result in much simpler ecosystems until evolution can recomplicate them, which will take millions of years. I don't think it's a bad thing to try and prevent our interference from creating a mass extinction event. Dinner ecosystems are generally less stable, and that presents a threat to agriculture, apart from any other concerns with the morality of causing a mass extinction event.
Invasive species are one aspect of this and grey squirrels just one invasive species among many, but one does what one can.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
A bit of a non sequitur to my comment, but it's far from impossible. As you realise, the clue is in the word 'net'.
Lawton's flawed judgment was clear long before his slide into climate denial.
As Chancellor, he was brilliant in recognising and addressing the problems of the old economic settlement - tax reform; the abolition of exchange controls; deregulation ... and to an extent, privatisation.
But he established in its place an economic orthodoxy with its own set of flaws. 'Rolling back the frontiers of the state' became a religion, rather than a policy. And its malign effects last to this day in all kind of ways.
Lawson was an ideologue - more so than Thatcher. I recall reading that she wanted to reduce the top rate of tax to 50% - he persuaded her to go for 40%. For me he embodied everything that was wrong with the greed is good philosophy of late Thatcherism, which I think has basically ruined this country. He was also a malign influence in the climate debate. Still, any man who gave us the lovely Nigella can't be all bad. RIP.
AAUI you have done super well for yourself. Well done you. How do you distinguish your journey up the greasy pole from that of a horrible, nasty, Thatcherite capitalist?
Oh no (!) it's yet another outbreak of the "material success in life means you can't hold left wing political views" virus.
Is there no vaccine for this?
If you're poor and criticise Tory policies it's the "politics of envy" and if you're rich you're a hypocrite. There must be some level of household income where you're allowed to have an opinion but I haven't found out what it is yet.
well it's only the other side of the coin from if your poor and criticise Labour youre a racist and if youre rich and criticise Labour youre an uncaring toff
2023 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65166859 ...Wet wipes containing plastic will be banned in England under plans to tackle water pollution, environment minister Therese Coffey has told BBC News. The ban on plastic-based wipes should come into force in the next year following a consultation, Ms Coffey said..
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Again a stupid and left field comment given that at no time did I mention wolves. Preventing the destruction of existing native species is not the same as the whole sale uncontrolled reintroducing of all now extinct previous native species. You are clearly having a bad logic day.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
A bit of a non sequitur to my comment, but it's far from impossible. As you realise, the clue is in the word 'net'.
Lawton's flawed judgment was clear long before his slide into climate denial.
As Chancellor, he was brilliant in recognising and addressing the problems of the old economic settlement - tax reform; the abolition of exchange controls; deregulation ... and to an extent, privatisation.
But he established in its place an economic orthodoxy with its own set of flaws. 'Rolling back the frontiers of the state' became a religion, rather than a policy. And its malign effects last to this day in all kind of ways.
Lawson was an ideologue - more so than Thatcher. I recall reading that she wanted to reduce the top rate of tax to 50% - he persuaded her to go for 40%. For me he embodied everything that was wrong with the greed is good philosophy of late Thatcherism, which I think has basically ruined this country. He was also a malign influence in the climate debate. Still, any man who gave us the lovely Nigella can't be all bad. RIP.
AAUI you have done super well for yourself. Well done you. How do you distinguish your journey up the greasy pole from that of a horrible, nasty, Thatcherite capitalist?
I love capitalism. I also love progressive taxation. Do well for yourself, but pay your taxes and don't think you're too good to use the same public services as anyone else. I don't think there is a contradiction - in fact quite the opposite. Capitalism without a powerful welfare state to balance it will descend into a dark place, as we are seeing in the US and starting to see here.
Totally agree with this, with one exception. Flat tax rate. You still pay more the more you earn, you just lose the idiotic bands which ALWAYS introduce distortions (e.g. getting paid in shares rather than money to avoid paying tax.) Flat tax rates is still progressive in my eyes.
On the subject of the laws of mathematics, I see the government's promised extra £1/2 billion over three years in funding to solve Social Care workforce shortages has been quietly halved. Seems to have been replaced by a poster campaign begging folk to work instead.
If the plan is to have more people holidaying in the UK the government needs to stop the water companies pouring raw sewage into our seas. No-one wants their kids paddling among turds!
So two strands needed to achieve this:
1) Sort out the sewage system;
This is a strange one. Like discharges into rivers, discharges onto beaches are a pan-European problem. The scales just pre-Brexi0, 2016t:
So that's up from 65% in 2016 to 71% in 2021, and it appears to have improved further - to 72.1% - last year.
Trouble is the 'narrative' has been set that Brexit means our water companies are having free reign to pollute and everything is getting worse. All those effing wild swimmers moaning in the Grauniad.
Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
Red squirrels are protected
So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.
I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
Why? Because they inconvenience you?Any other species you'd like to eliminate to make things more comfortable for you and your dog?
Grey squirrels are an invasive species, steadily eradicating the red squirrels.
There are plenty of examples, around the world, and carried out by environmental protection organisations, of eliminating invasive species to protect the original flora and fauna.
Watch the film 'Cow'. It might give you a different perspective on our relationship with animals and perhaps what it should be..
I've been feeding a bunch of grey squirrels since lockdown. They are the most fascinating animals I've intereacted with. Incredibly clean as it happens and with a memory I've not seen in another wild animal.
I took a series of photos of them over lockdown and I emerged a vegetarian. Viewing individuals as a species which can be eliminated is the thinking of a Nazi and the only way to cure yourself is to get to know them on a one to one basis.
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times today makes the case that we have had enough of 'big ideas', and the most successful pitch for the next election would we "We won't break anything else"
It's an interesting idea, but neglects the fact that we do need a government that will in fact "fix some of the shit we just broke"
Hugo Rifkind has the uncanny habit of always writing a column I disagree with, and this is no exception. His support of safety-ism is the reason on this occasion.
He's not as bad as Giles Coren, who seems to be a centrist James Delingpole.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
Remember the iron rule of pb: Roger is always wrong, unless it's the Oscars.
Invasive species cause all sorts of damage to ecosystems that have developed without them. Overall they lead to a net loss of biodiversity, species extinction and damage to habitats.
But isn't that how nature works, with species rising and falling over time due to complex interactions. Is it desirable or even feasible to try to freeze evolution at whatever particular moment in time we decide to do it?
As for grey squirrels eating birds' nests or walnuts (cited in other posts), don't red squirrels do that too? Those objections seem to be more about disliking squirrels per se.
No. The reason grey squirrels outcompete reds is that they eat nuts and berries before they are ripe and before the Reds would do so. They live at higher population densities and do more damage to nesting birds than Reds.
Natural evolution does proceed with some species disappearing and others replacing them, but the introduction of grey squirrels was artificial, so removing them is to remove our previous interference. It's not about trying to prevent any natural change.
Essentially all our interference and habitat destruction is creating another mass extinction event, which will result in much simpler ecosystems until evolution can recomplicate them, which will take millions of years. I don't think it's a bad thing to try and prevent our interference from creating a mass extinction event. Dinner ecosystems are generally less stable, and that presents a threat to agriculture, apart from any other concerns with the morality of causing a mass extinction event.
Invasive species are one aspect of this and grey squirrels just one invasive species among many, but one does what one can.
I’m late to this, so someone may have already made the point, but IIRC, grey squirrels have an endemic pox, which is fatal to the red ones.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
I think they're related because whether you have FoM or not affects what the passport checks need to do. If a British person wants to enter Schengen and they're part of the same FoM zone as you then you (mostly) just need to check that they have a British passport. If they're not doing FoM then you also need to manage how long they'll be allowed to stay and whether they've already stayed too long, which involves more steps.
No, FoM related to the entitlement to a National Insurance number, and the right to work. Nothing to do with border checks.
It does appear that the French want to stamp passports to check for overstays, but that takes only a couple of seconds per passport.
I really don't know why you post this kind of nonsense. It patently takes longer than only a couple of seconds. Open passport. Check last entry, check last exit, check cumulative days stayed in the last 180. And then if all ok find the next page and stamp.
The physical stamping takes only a few seconds. The rest takes a minute. And this is why the queues are here. I assume that had we not left we would have been given a bypass for this new Schengen rule. Or at the very least reduced it. We could have I asked for that.
Instead we said "we want to be a third country". And this is the process. Think how much fun we will all be having next year when we need to be fingerprinted and have our visa checked.
If people voted for Brexit because they wanted to keep foreigners out of Britain, they have a cheek to complain that other countries may want to keep us out of theirs.
Indeed. The lack of self awareness is stunning sometimes. See also people who complain about immigration while detailing their own plans to move abroad.
I must admit @leon's posts yesterday caused me to have steam coming out of my ears. A combination of the desire to move abroad and the tax benefits of doing so having banged on about Brexit so much and going on and on about Gary Lineker being a tax dodger (against the available evidence) was just galling.
And to top it all stating the migration problem isn't what was promised by Brexit. I mean if only people had bothered to tell him it wouldn't work then it wouldn't have come as such a huge surprise to him. Honestly.
Comments
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/turnbull-war-on-maths
Governments including the UK) have a policy of demanding a back door into commercial encryption. This is impossible to do without threatening the safety of just about everything online.
When told that the laws of mathematics say that the back door is a stupid idea....
The Indiana Pi Bill (which doesn't actually mention pi at all) is just weird.
Try again, perhaps with some coherent thought.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
It's as sensible as having a giant catflap in every front door so the police can gain entry.
Natural evolution does proceed with some species disappearing and others replacing them, but the introduction of grey squirrels was artificial, so removing them is to remove our previous interference. It's not about trying to prevent any natural change.
Essentially all our interference and habitat destruction is creating another mass extinction event, which will result in much simpler ecosystems until evolution can recomplicate them, which will take millions of years. I don't think it's a bad thing to try and prevent our interference from creating a mass extinction event. Dinner ecosystems are generally less stable, and that presents a threat to agriculture, apart from any other concerns with the morality of causing a mass extinction event.
Invasive species are one aspect of this and grey squirrels just one invasive species among many, but one does what one can.
2018
Wet wipes could face wipe-out in plastic clean-up
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44034025
2021
Call for evidence on commonly littered and problematic plastic items
https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-quality/call-for-evidence-on-commonly-littered-and-problem/
2023
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65166859
...Wet wipes containing plastic will be banned in England under plans to tackle water pollution, environment minister Therese Coffey has told BBC News.
The ban on plastic-based wipes should come into force in the next year following a consultation, Ms Coffey said..
Seems to have been replaced by a poster campaign begging folk to work instead.
I've been feeding a bunch of grey squirrels since lockdown. They are the most fascinating animals I've intereacted with. Incredibly clean as it happens and with a memory I've not seen in another wild animal.
I took a series of photos of them over lockdown and I emerged a vegetarian. Viewing individuals as a species which can be eliminated is the thinking of a Nazi and the only way to cure yourself is to get to know them on a one to one basis.
The pollution is a disgrace. This is bloody Britain, not some tin-pot country with no regulation.