The Eurostar is 5x more inconvenient than it was pre-Br*x*t.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
That makes Eurostar a pretty awful experience. I am due to travel there on my way to San Sebastian in two weeks time. I'm not looking forward to it.
Yeah, I pass through St Pancras quite often, and the queues for the Eurostar look horrendous every time.
It used to feel like a very elegant and simple way to travel abroad, a sign of a confident capital and an outward-looking nation. Now has a crappy parochial drabness, inefficient and glum - the glorious architecture housing it now serving to underline the decline to this point, like the shanty town T.E. Lawrence found in Krak des Chevaliers. Sad.
How about diverting HS2 into St P, and building a proper sized international train terminal elsewhere....
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
Portugal hasn't needed to agree anything with the EU, because there's nothing that prohibits EU countries from implementing eGates at their borders.
But the passports still need to be double stamped for UK citizens no? How much will the eGates reduce the delay?
No.
They need to be either stamped or electronically tracked.
Not according to the Foreign Office:
Check your passport is stamped by the border officer when you enter and exit Portugal as a visitor. You can use the staffed immigration booths or, if you are aged 18 and over, the e-gates designated for UK and some other non-EU nationals. Hand your passport for stamping to the border officer after you have passed through the e-gate. You cannot use the e-gates to exit Portugal if you entered the Schengen area via another member state. Border guards use passport stamps to check you’re complying with the 90-day visa-free limit for short stays in the Schengen area. If relevant entry or exit stamps are not in your passport, a border officer may presume that you have overstayed your visa-free limit.
If you use the ePassport gates it generates an electronic trail which removes the need for a stamp. If you travel to Rome or Lisbon, you will use the gates and you will be fully compliant.
Should we be surprised, the FO has got little right since the 1920s...
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
That's got to be either a fake/hoax caller or the man's mad?
Edit: And you would have hoped a feminist like Shelagh would have challenged him on his misogynistic assumption that a wife must vote the same way as her husband or she faces being divorced?
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Individual countries have always had the ability to implement eGates, and to treat EEA and UK citizens equally. Portugal announced their intention to roll out the gates at all major airports last year. When I flew to Rome in September, they had them too. In Austria in March, the gates were installed (and the signs included the British flag) but the official apologised that they were not yet working for British passport holders.
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
In fact, my experience of some EU destinations (e.g. Canary Islands) is that e-gates are in place and most Brits have the right passports for them but many EU citizens do not. So we queue less than they do.
ISO/IEC 7501-1:2008 has been obligatory since 2012, so I don't think that's going to last.
That's got to be either a fake/hoax caller or the man's mad?
Edit: And you would have hoped a feminist like Shelagh would have challenged him on his misogynistic assumption that a wife must vote the same way as her husband or she faces being divorced?
I think "faces being divorced" is not quite how any sane person would put it.
Finland will bring "moral support" to NATO but will need "encouraging" to invest in it's own armed forces says retired senior British Army officer, Lord Richard Dannatt.
The Finnish army has more trained soldiers and more weaponry than the UK.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
Portugal hasn't needed to agree anything with the EU, because there's nothing that prohibits EU countries from implementing eGates at their borders.
But the passports still need to be double stamped for UK citizens no? How much will the eGates reduce the delay?
No.
They need to be either stamped or electronically tracked.
Not according to the Foreign Office:
Check your passport is stamped by the border officer when you enter and exit Portugal as a visitor. You can use the staffed immigration booths or, if you are aged 18 and over, the e-gates designated for UK and some other non-EU nationals. Hand your passport for stamping to the border officer after you have passed through the e-gate. You cannot use the e-gates to exit Portugal if you entered the Schengen area via another member state. Border guards use passport stamps to check you’re complying with the 90-day visa-free limit for short stays in the Schengen area. If relevant entry or exit stamps are not in your passport, a border officer may presume that you have overstayed your visa-free limit.
If you use the ePassport gates it generates an electronic trail which removes the need for a stamp. If you travel to Rome or Lisbon, you will use the gates and you will be fully compliant.
Should we be surprised, the FO has got little right since the 1920s...
This is assuming the Sykes-Picot line was a triumph of diplomacy and foreign relations.
That's got to be either a fake/hoax caller or the man's mad?
Edit: And you would have hoped a feminist like Shelagh would have challenged him on his misogynistic assumption that a wife must vote the same way as her husband or she faces being divorced?
Under divorce law as it now is in England (following Scotland's lead) no reason at all is needed for a divorce, and there are no grounds at all under which it can be contested by the party or denied by the court. So if Shelagh had so challenged him, it would be without remedy.
The Eurostar is 5x more inconvenient than it was pre-Br*x*t.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
That makes Eurostar a pretty awful experience. I am due to travel there on my way to San Sebastian in two weeks time. I'm not looking forward to it.
Yeah, I pass through St Pancras quite often, and the queues for the Eurostar look horrendous every time.
It used to feel like a very elegant and simple way to travel abroad, a sign of a confident capital and an outward-looking nation. Now has a crappy parochial drabness, inefficient and glum - the glorious architecture housing it now serving to underline the decline to this point, like the shanty town T.E. Lawrence found in Krak des Chevaliers. Sad.
Yep. I had a decade between trips and the difference was stark. The first was a relaxed pleasant journey, the latter like boarding a plane and I hate flying, not because of the actual flying but the bit before and after.
Ditto, I'm afraid. Used to glide in there, straight through, glass of bubbly and a dish of nuts at the trackside bar, then whoosh, off to Paris. The very definition of travel as pleasure. Now, all a bit of a drag. Just another A to B experience.
Finland will bring "moral support" to NATO but will need "encouraging" to invest in it's own armed forces says retired senior British Army officer, Lord Richard Dannatt.
The Finnish army has more trained soldiers and more weaponry than the UK.
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
The Eurostar is 5x more inconvenient than it was pre-Br*x*t.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
That makes Eurostar a pretty awful experience. I am due to travel there on my way to San Sebastian in two weeks time. I'm not looking forward to it.
Yeah, I pass through St Pancras quite often, and the queues for the Eurostar look horrendous every time.
It used to feel like a very elegant and simple way to travel abroad, a sign of a confident capital and an outward-looking nation. Now has a crappy parochial drabness, inefficient and glum - the glorious architecture housing it now serving to underline the decline to this point, like the shanty town T.E. Lawrence found in Krak des Chevaliers. Sad.
Yep. I had a decade between trips and the difference was stark. The first was a relaxed pleasant journey, the latter like boarding a plane and I hate flying, not because of the actual flying but the bit before and after.
Ditto, I'm afraid. Used to glide in there, straight through, glass of bubbly and a dish of nuts at the trackside bar, then whoosh, off to Paris. The very definition of travel as pleasure. Now, all a bit of a drag. Just another A to B experience.
The contrast with beautifully quick and easy border-free travel on the Continent is striking.
Finland will bring "moral support" to NATO but will need "encouraging" to invest in it's own armed forces says retired senior British Army officer, Lord Richard Dannatt.
The Finnish army has more trained soldiers and more weaponry than the UK.
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Individual countries have always had the ability to implement eGates, and to treat EEA and UK citizens equally. Portugal announced their intention to roll out the gates at all major airports last year. When I flew to Rome in September, they had them too. In Austria in March, the gates were installed (and the signs included the British flag) but the official apologised that they were not yet working for British passport holders.
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
In fact, my experience of some EU destinations (e.g. Canary Islands) is that e-gates are in place and most Brits have the right passports for them but many EU citizens do not. So we queue less than they do.
ISO/IEC 7501-1:2008 has been obligatory since 2012, so I don't think that's going to last.
Won't some or many EU citizens be travelling on ID cards, not having a passport? Do the ID cards work in eGates?
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
That is a fabulous basis on which to assume power. Good majority, low expectations. An absolute dream combo.
“Good majority?” There’s only so far “not the Tories” will take them….and ask Liz Truss how starting with low expectations worked out…
I'm pretty confident Labour will win comfortably. My central forecast for their seats is 340 with more upside than downside potential.
I'm less sure. There is not, yet, a groundswell of optimism about Starmer and Labour. There is a groundswell behind voting the Conservatives out. Sunak is doing ok - but the economic damage has been done and is hurting a lot of folk. But it doesn't feel like 1997 yet, and Labour has yet to have the full fire of the media on it scrutinising everything. Already they seem to have used the windfall tax for five different projects.
I'm pretty sure I want Starmer in power. I wouldn't be averse to a coalition - the last one was my 'favourite' government of recent times. I don't think anything is set in stone yet though.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
We heard little else from them.
LOL. "Worse out than in", although mathematically equivalent to "better in than out", is very different emotionally. I seem to remember we've already had this discussion in recent days.
We have - and your 'point' hasn't got any better. It's inane. Staying in the EU was the status quo. Same old same old. You can't market this as the ticket to a thrilling new life.
"Vote Remain. Let's carry on as we are. It's gonna be a blast!"
C'mon.
What you can do is what was done - stress that leaving would make us poorer and weaker. Which has duly happened, hence the consensus it was a mistake.
The bit in bold says it all. The Remain campaign was negative and argued "worse out than in" not "better in than out" - if you admit as much, why are you disagreeing with me? We agree!
What would be better than trolling - which I have limited patience for these days as you know - is if you can provide a concrete example of a big positive uplifting argument for staying in the EU that the Remain campaign should have made but didn't.
Some actual examples of things that we benefited from by being in the EU. Not described as "we will/might lose this if we leave".
The Eurostar is 5x more inconvenient than it was pre-Br*x*t.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
That makes Eurostar a pretty awful experience. I am due to travel there on my way to San Sebastian in two weeks time. I'm not looking forward to it.
Yeah, I pass through St Pancras quite often, and the queues for the Eurostar look horrendous every time.
It used to feel like a very elegant and simple way to travel abroad, a sign of a confident capital and an outward-looking nation. Now has a crappy parochial drabness, inefficient and glum - the glorious architecture housing it now serving to underline the decline to this point, like the shanty town T.E. Lawrence found in Krak des Chevaliers. Sad.
Yep. I had a decade between trips and the difference was stark. The first was a relaxed pleasant journey, the latter like boarding a plane and I hate flying, not because of the actual flying but the bit before and after.
Ditto, I'm afraid. Used to glide in there, straight through, glass of bubbly and a dish of nuts at the trackside bar, then whoosh, off to Paris. The very definition of travel as pleasure. Now, all a bit of a drag. Just another A to B experience.
Last time I went on Eurostar, admittedly some years back now, I thought the carriages were starting to look very dog-eared. Have they smartened them up recently?
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Individual countries have always had the ability to implement eGates, and to treat EEA and UK citizens equally. Portugal announced their intention to roll out the gates at all major airports last year. When I flew to Rome in September, they had them too. In Austria in March, the gates were installed (and the signs included the British flag) but the official apologised that they were not yet working for British passport holders.
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
In fact, my experience of some EU destinations (e.g. Canary Islands) is that e-gates are in place and most Brits have the right passports for them but many EU citizens do not. So we queue less than they do.
ISO/IEC 7501-1:2008 has been obligatory since 2012, so I don't think that's going to last.
Won't some or many EU citizens be travelling on ID cards, not having a passport? Do the ID cards work in eGates?
If they've left the Schengen zone, then surely they'll have had to take their passport with them?
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
That is a fabulous basis on which to assume power. Good majority, low expectations. An absolute dream combo.
“Good majority?” There’s only so far “not the Tories” will take them….and ask Liz Truss how starting with low expectations worked out…
I'm pretty confident Labour will win comfortably. My central forecast for their seats is 340 with more upside than downside potential.
I'm less sure. There is not, yet, a groundswell of optimism about Starmer and Labour. There is a groundswell behind voting the Conservatives out. Sunak is doing ok - but the economic damage has been done and is hurting a lot of folk. But it doesn't feel like 1997 yet, and Labour has yet to have the full fire of the media on it scrutinising everything. Already they seem to have used the windfall tax for five different projects.
I'm pretty sure I want Starmer in power. I wouldn't be averse to a coalition - the last one was my 'favourite' government of recent times. I don't think anything is set in stone yet though.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Individual countries have always had the ability to implement eGates, and to treat EEA and UK citizens equally. Portugal announced their intention to roll out the gates at all major airports last year. When I flew to Rome in September, they had them too. In Austria in March, the gates were installed (and the signs included the British flag) but the official apologised that they were not yet working for British passport holders.
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
In fact, my experience of some EU destinations (e.g. Canary Islands) is that e-gates are in place and most Brits have the right passports for them but many EU citizens do not. So we queue less than they do.
ISO/IEC 7501-1:2008 has been obligatory since 2012, so I don't think that's going to last.
Won't some or many EU citizens be travelling on ID cards, not having a passport? Do the ID cards work in eGates?
If they've left the Schengen zone, then surely they'll have had to take their passport with them?
No, you can travel throughout the EU with just a national ID card. The only reason why UK citizens could not do that (pre-brexit) is because the UK has no national ID card.
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
That is a fabulous basis on which to assume power. Good majority, low expectations. An absolute dream combo.
“Good majority?” There’s only so far “not the Tories” will take them….and ask Liz Truss how starting with low expectations worked out…
I'm pretty confident Labour will win comfortably. My central forecast for their seats is 340 with more upside than downside potential.
I'm less sure. There is not, yet, a groundswell of optimism about Starmer and Labour. There is a groundswell behind voting the Conservatives out. Sunak is doing ok - but the economic damage has been done and is hurting a lot of folk. But it doesn't feel like 1997 yet, and Labour has yet to have the full fire of the media on it scrutinising everything. Already they seem to have used the windfall tax for five different projects.
I'm pretty sure I want Starmer in power. I wouldn't be averse to a coalition - the last one was my 'favourite' government of recent times. I don't think anything is set in stone yet though.
I used to believe calls like this, but now I wonder whether they're just from attention seekers.
I read PB and don't get out much. What are "attention seekers"?
Pretty much anyone who calls into radio stations to air their lives for the nation to hear.
Basic rule - radio callers no more represent the nation than PBers.
I always wonder about callers into radio. Are the radio station desperate for anyone to call, perhaps to the extent of having admin staff on standby to do so, or do they get so many callers that they have a large degree of editorial control in deciding who reaches the air?
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
I have, regularly, since Brexit. The fact that I regard the original decision as a mistake doesn't mean I haven't been a proponent of managing it better.
Was it you who assured me that our car industry was going to be fine ? I seem to recall arguments with several ardent Brexiteers who were adamant that the transition to EVs wouldn't be a threat to UK manufacturing. We could have averted that.
Myself and @another_richard have spent about 10 years on this site warning the run down of UK manufacturing through governmental neglect was a major issue. I find it somewhat amusing that those who said we had were wrong are now doing a 189 degree turn becuase they want to use it for a Brexit argument.
As for the UK car industry its problems are nor Brexit related except at the margins, They are the usual issue of government neglect the Tories are as bad as Blair, supply chain weaknesses through chip availability, it's own shooting itself in the foot through confusing customers on power train and fuel systems. I suspect you will find I was not a big EV supporter as I couldnt see where we would be putting the infrastructure in in time, And still dont.
Oh, the old "the UK doesn't make anything anymore" canard, beloved of those on the far left and the reactionary right.
FYI, the UK is in the top ten manufacturing countries in the world with an annual output of £183 billion. Your understanding of this seems to be about as informed as your use of punctuation or the potential for EVs. The latter is unsurprising as you are clearly a reactionary, and reactionaries are rarely early adopters.
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
That is a fabulous basis on which to assume power. Good majority, low expectations. An absolute dream combo.
“Good majority?” There’s only so far “not the Tories” will take them….and ask Liz Truss how starting with low expectations worked out…
I'm pretty confident Labour will win comfortably. My central forecast for their seats is 340 with more upside than downside potential.
I'm less sure. There is not, yet, a groundswell of optimism about Starmer and Labour. There is a groundswell behind voting the Conservatives out. Sunak is doing ok - but the economic damage has been done and is hurting a lot of folk. But it doesn't feel like 1997 yet, and Labour has yet to have the full fire of the media on it scrutinising everything. Already they seem to have used the windfall tax for five different projects.
I'm pretty sure I want Starmer in power. I wouldn't be averse to a coalition - the last one was my 'favourite' government of recent times. I don't think anything is set in stone yet though.
The Eurostar is 5x more inconvenient than it was pre-Br*x*t.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
That makes Eurostar a pretty awful experience. I am due to travel there on my way to San Sebastian in two weeks time. I'm not looking forward to it.
Yeah, I pass through St Pancras quite often, and the queues for the Eurostar look horrendous every time.
It used to feel like a very elegant and simple way to travel abroad, a sign of a confident capital and an outward-looking nation. Now has a crappy parochial drabness, inefficient and glum - the glorious architecture housing it now serving to underline the decline to this point, like the shanty town T.E. Lawrence found in Krak des Chevaliers. Sad.
Yep. I had a decade between trips and the difference was stark. The first was a relaxed pleasant journey, the latter like boarding a plane and I hate flying, not because of the actual flying but the bit before and after.
Ditto, I'm afraid. Used to glide in there, straight through, glass of bubbly and a dish of nuts at the trackside bar, then whoosh, off to Paris. The very definition of travel as pleasure. Now, all a bit of a drag. Just another A to B experience.
Last time I went on Eurostar, admittedly some years back now, I thought the carriages were starting to look very dog-eared. Have they smartened them up recently?
They are ok-ish. The better classes are better and (depending on when you last travelled) they are all the new trains. But the paraphernalia of taking the train now is a vastly changed experience. As people have noted on here.
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
That is a fabulous basis on which to assume power. Good majority, low expectations. An absolute dream combo.
“Good majority?” There’s only so far “not the Tories” will take them….and ask Liz Truss how starting with low expectations worked out…
I'm pretty confident Labour will win comfortably. My central forecast for their seats is 340 with more upside than downside potential.
I'm less sure. There is not, yet, a groundswell of optimism about Starmer and Labour. There is a groundswell behind voting the Conservatives out. Sunak is doing ok - but the economic damage has been done and is hurting a lot of folk. But it doesn't feel like 1997 yet, and Labour has yet to have the full fire of the media on it scrutinising everything. Already they seem to have used the windfall tax for five different projects.
I'm pretty sure I want Starmer in power. I wouldn't be averse to a coalition - the last one was my 'favourite' government of recent times. I don't think anything is set in stone yet though.
I used to believe calls like this, but now I wonder whether they're just from attention seekers.
I read PB and don't get out much. What are "attention seekers"?
Pretty much anyone who calls into radio stations to air their lives for the nation to hear.
Basic rule - radio callers no more represent the nation than PBers.
I always wonder about callers into radio. Are the radio station desperate for anyone to call, perhaps to the extent of having admin staff on standby to do so, or do they get so many callers that they have a large degree of editorial control in deciding who reaches the air?
I think that depends. National (think radio 5 etc) probably have plenty. Local radio on the other hand seems to be a few that call ALL the time. I recall driving back from Ipswich one night to Norwich with the local radio call in show, and it was more like regulars down the pub.
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
That is a fabulous basis on which to assume power. Good majority, low expectations. An absolute dream combo.
“Good majority?” There’s only so far “not the Tories” will take them….and ask Liz Truss how starting with low expectations worked out…
I'm pretty confident Labour will win comfortably. My central forecast for their seats is 340 with more upside than downside potential.
I'm less sure. There is not, yet, a groundswell of optimism about Starmer and Labour. There is a groundswell behind voting the Conservatives out. Sunak is doing ok - but the economic damage has been done and is hurting a lot of folk. But it doesn't feel like 1997 yet, and Labour has yet to have the full fire of the media on it scrutinising everything. Already they seem to have used the windfall tax for five different projects.
I'm pretty sure I want Starmer in power. I wouldn't be averse to a coalition - the last one was my 'favourite' government of recent times. I don't think anything is set in stone yet though.
I don’t think the record of the Cameron/Clegg coalition period holds up very well at all.
The disastrous social impact of bolloxing surestart and taking an axe to policing / the criminal justice system were just the start.
Even in accounting terms, these policies didn’t make sense. It costs way more to fix these problems, 10-20 years down the line.
Osborne was severely short-sighted, let alone socially irresponsible in many of his decisions. Perhaps there was some naïveté, there. Perhaps they really believed that a big society would fill the gaps in the areas the state withdrew from?
Either way, naive or cynical, their policy decisions look pretty terrible in hindsight.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Individual countries have always had the ability to implement eGates, and to treat EEA and UK citizens equally. Portugal announced their intention to roll out the gates at all major airports last year. When I flew to Rome in September, they had them too. In Austria in March, the gates were installed (and the signs included the British flag) but the official apologised that they were not yet working for British passport holders.
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
In fact, my experience of some EU destinations (e.g. Canary Islands) is that e-gates are in place and most Brits have the right passports for them but many EU citizens do not. So we queue less than they do.
ISO/IEC 7501-1:2008 has been obligatory since 2012, so I don't think that's going to last.
Won't some or many EU citizens be travelling on ID cards, not having a passport? Do the ID cards work in eGates?
If they've left the Schengen zone, then surely they'll have had to take their passport with them?
No, you can travel throughout the EU with just a national ID card. The only reason why UK citizens could not do that (pre-brexit) is because the UK has no national ID card.
Eh?
If the EU citizens are traveling around the Schengen zone, then they won't be going through passport gates at all.
If they are going through passport gates, it must be because they are traveling from outside the Schengen zone which - except for very few exceptions (like Ireland) - means they will need to carry a passport.
I used to believe calls like this, but now I wonder whether they're just from attention seekers.
I read PB and don't get out much. What are "attention seekers"?
Pretty much anyone who calls into radio stations to air their lives for the nation to hear.
Basic rule - radio callers no more represent the nation than PBers.
Ditto shopping-street vox pops on TV news bulletins.
Yep. Also one suspects heavily curated by the editors.
When my father was a senior policeman he was often required to give interviews to the media. He was expert at giving nothing away and basically nothing he said ever got used. A masterclass.
Sadly Wilts police has changed in the years since he retired (its been a while) and we've had dickheads like Mike Veale essentially declaring ex PM's as paedophiles on national TV.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
By the latest opinion polls the voters seem to be telling themselves they got it wrong.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
We heard little else from them.
LOL. "Worse out than in", although mathematically equivalent to "better in than out", is very different emotionally. I seem to remember we've already had this discussion in recent days.
We have - and your 'point' hasn't got any better. It's inane. Staying in the EU was the status quo. Same old same old. You can't market this as the ticket to a thrilling new life.
"Vote Remain. Let's carry on as we are. It's gonna be a blast!"
C'mon.
What you can do is what was done - stress that leaving would make us poorer and weaker. Which has duly happened, hence the consensus it was a mistake.
The bit in bold says it all. The Remain campaign was negative and argued "worse out than in" not "better in than out" - if you admit as much, why are you disagreeing with me? We agree!
What would be better than trolling - which I have limited patience for these days as you know - is if you can provide a concrete example of a big positive uplifting argument for staying in the EU that the Remain campaign should have made but didn't.
Some actual examples of things that we benefited from by being in the EU. Not described as "we will/might lose this if we leave".
Such as? Come on let's have a sample 'campaigning sentence' ...
"Perhaps THE most excellent of the many excellent things about EU membership is ... Driver to complete"
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
That is a fabulous basis on which to assume power. Good majority, low expectations. An absolute dream combo.
“Good majority?” There’s only so far “not the Tories” will take them….and ask Liz Truss how starting with low expectations worked out…
I'm pretty confident Labour will win comfortably. My central forecast for their seats is 340 with more upside than downside potential.
I'm less sure. There is not, yet, a groundswell of optimism about Starmer and Labour. There is a groundswell behind voting the Conservatives out. Sunak is doing ok - but the economic damage has been done and is hurting a lot of folk. But it doesn't feel like 1997 yet, and Labour has yet to have the full fire of the media on it scrutinising everything. Already they seem to have used the windfall tax for five different projects.
I'm pretty sure I want Starmer in power. I wouldn't be averse to a coalition - the last one was my 'favourite' government of recent times. I don't think anything is set in stone yet though.
I don’t think the record of the Cameron/Clegg coalition period holds up very well at all.
The disastrous social impact of bolloxing surestart and taking an axe to policing / the criminal justice system were just the start.
Even in accounting terms, these policies didn’t make sense. It costs way more to fix these problems, 10-20 years down the line.
Osborne was severely short-sighted, let alone socially irresponsible in many of his decisions. Perhaps there was some naïveté, there. Perhaps they really believed that a big society would fill the gaps in the areas the state withdrew from?
Either way, naive or cynical, their policy decisions look pretty terrible in hindsight.
I don't disagree with most of that, but you can do the same for almost all governments. I liked the coalition because I felt that the Lib Dems softened the worst elements of conservatism just enough. Sadly they were then shafted in 2015, allowing the disastrous Tory majority that followed.
The Eurostar is 5x more inconvenient than it was pre-Br*x*t.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
That makes Eurostar a pretty awful experience. I am due to travel there on my way to San Sebastian in two weeks time. I'm not looking forward to it.
Yeah, I pass through St Pancras quite often, and the queues for the Eurostar look horrendous every time.
It used to feel like a very elegant and simple way to travel abroad, a sign of a confident capital and an outward-looking nation. Now has a crappy parochial drabness, inefficient and glum - the glorious architecture housing it now serving to underline the decline to this point, like the shanty town T.E. Lawrence found in Krak des Chevaliers. Sad.
Yep. I had a decade between trips and the difference was stark. The first was a relaxed pleasant journey, the latter like boarding a plane and I hate flying, not because of the actual flying but the bit before and after.
Ditto, I'm afraid. Used to glide in there, straight through, glass of bubbly and a dish of nuts at the trackside bar, then whoosh, off to Paris. The very definition of travel as pleasure. Now, all a bit of a drag. Just another A to B experience.
Last time I went on Eurostar, admittedly some years back now, I thought the carriages were starting to look very dog-eared. Have they smartened them up recently?
They started a big refresh about six or seven years ago. I don't know when it was completed.
Putin said he invaded Ukraine because he didn’t want NATO on Russia’s border. Well congratulations, the border between Russia and NATO is now twice as long as it was a year ago.
Putin said he invaded Ukraine because he didn’t want NATO on Russia’s border. Well congratulations, the border between Russia and NATO is now twice as long as it was a year ago.
And you could now send a nuke to St Petersburg on a trebuchet....
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
That is a fabulous basis on which to assume power. Good majority, low expectations. An absolute dream combo.
“Good majority?” There’s only so far “not the Tories” will take them….and ask Liz Truss how starting with low expectations worked out…
I'm pretty confident Labour will win comfortably. My central forecast for their seats is 340 with more upside than downside potential.
I'm less sure. There is not, yet, a groundswell of optimism about Starmer and Labour. There is a groundswell behind voting the Conservatives out. Sunak is doing ok - but the economic damage has been done and is hurting a lot of folk. But it doesn't feel like 1997 yet, and Labour has yet to have the full fire of the media on it scrutinising everything. Already they seem to have used the windfall tax for five different projects.
I'm pretty sure I want Starmer in power. I wouldn't be averse to a coalition - the last one was my 'favourite' government of recent times. I don't think anything is set in stone yet though.
I don’t think the record of the Cameron/Clegg coalition period holds up very well at all.
The disastrous social impact of bolloxing surestart and taking an axe to policing / the criminal justice system were just the start.
Even in accounting terms, these policies didn’t make sense. It costs way more to fix these problems, 10-20 years down the line.
Osborne was severely short-sighted, let alone socially irresponsible in many of his decisions. Perhaps there was some naïveté, there. Perhaps they really believed that a big society would fill the gaps in the areas the state withdrew from?
Either way, naive or cynical, their policy decisions look pretty terrible in hindsight.
Yes the rot set in then. They got high on their own supply with respect to the idea that the global financial crisis had been caused by Labour over spending, and as a result cut too much. Plenty of scapegoating of the poor too - Osborne and his vile "sleeping off a life on benefits" comments. Slashing funding to red wall constituencies, immiserating communities there, creating the conditions for the Brexit vote - which has only made those communities even poorer. Creating the OBR was the only good idea Osborne had.
Long letter from EHRC to Badenoch on clarifying “sex” = “biological sex”
On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.
The potential implications of this change should be carefully identified and considered, with due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and in particular any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.
Putin said he invaded Ukraine because he didn’t want NATO on Russia’s border. Well congratulations, the border between Russia and NATO is now twice as long as it was a year ago.
And if he were to somehow annex Ukraine and Belarus it will be much longer still.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Individual countries have always had the ability to implement eGates, and to treat EEA and UK citizens equally. Portugal announced their intention to roll out the gates at all major airports last year. When I flew to Rome in September, they had them too. In Austria in March, the gates were installed (and the signs included the British flag) but the official apologised that they were not yet working for British passport holders.
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
In fact, my experience of some EU destinations (e.g. Canary Islands) is that e-gates are in place and most Brits have the right passports for them but many EU citizens do not. So we queue less than they do.
ISO/IEC 7501-1:2008 has been obligatory since 2012, so I don't think that's going to last.
Won't some or many EU citizens be travelling on ID cards, not having a passport? Do the ID cards work in eGates?
If they've left the Schengen zone, then surely they'll have had to take their passport with them?
No, you can travel throughout the EU with just a national ID card. The only reason why UK citizens could not do that (pre-brexit) is because the UK has no national ID card.
Eh?
If the EU citizens are traveling around the Schengen zone, then they won't be going through passport gates at all.
If they are going through passport gates, it must be because they are traveling from outside the Schengen zone which - except for very few exceptions (like Ireland) - means they will need to carry a passport.
Yup. I know Jersey just had to make a law tweak to allow French day-trippers in and out on their French ID cards as it caused an almost extinction of French school trips as so few have passports which not only wasn’t ideal economically for the island but also reduced the links between Jersey and Normandy and Brittany culturally.
Putin said he invaded Ukraine because he didn’t want NATO on Russia’s border. Well congratulations, the border between Russia and NATO is now twice as long as it was a year ago.
He just hasn't revealed his final masterstroke yet: moving the capital to Novosibirsk and turning Greater Belarus into a giant buffer state.
Putin said he invaded Ukraine because he didn’t want NATO on Russia’s border. Well congratulations, the border between Russia and NATO is now twice as long as it was a year ago.
And if he were to somehow annex Ukraine and Belarus it will be much longer still.
He didn't think this through, did he?
No, that a feature. Not a bug
So after invading Ukraine he would need to invade the rest of Eastern Europe. Then Western Europe.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Individual countries have always had the ability to implement eGates, and to treat EEA and UK citizens equally. Portugal announced their intention to roll out the gates at all major airports last year. When I flew to Rome in September, they had them too. In Austria in March, the gates were installed (and the signs included the British flag) but the official apologised that they were not yet working for British passport holders.
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
In fact, my experience of some EU destinations (e.g. Canary Islands) is that e-gates are in place and most Brits have the right passports for them but many EU citizens do not. So we queue less than they do.
ISO/IEC 7501-1:2008 has been obligatory since 2012, so I don't think that's going to last.
Won't some or many EU citizens be travelling on ID cards, not having a passport? Do the ID cards work in eGates?
If they've left the Schengen zone, then surely they'll have had to take their passport with them?
I see what you mean - Canaries are in Schenghen I see.
Does anyone know if a frenchman or spaniard needs a passport to go to Guadeloupe, a not-in-schenghen department of france? I would guess an EU ID card would be ok there...
Edit: looked it up, an EU ID will get you into Guadeloupe, despite it not being in schenghen.
Long letter from EHRC to Badenoch on clarifying “sex” = “biological sex”
On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.
The potential implications of this change should be carefully identified and considered, with due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and in particular any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
That is a fabulous basis on which to assume power. Good majority, low expectations. An absolute dream combo.
“Good majority?” There’s only so far “not the Tories” will take them….and ask Liz Truss how starting with low expectations worked out…
I'm pretty confident Labour will win comfortably. My central forecast for their seats is 340 with more upside than downside potential.
I'm less sure. There is not, yet, a groundswell of optimism about Starmer and Labour. There is a groundswell behind voting the Conservatives out. Sunak is doing ok - but the economic damage has been done and is hurting a lot of folk. But it doesn't feel like 1997 yet, and Labour has yet to have the full fire of the media on it scrutinising everything. Already they seem to have used the windfall tax for five different projects.
I'm pretty sure I want Starmer in power. I wouldn't be averse to a coalition - the last one was my 'favourite' government of recent times. I don't think anything is set in stone yet though.
I don’t think the record of the Cameron/Clegg coalition period holds up very well at all.
The disastrous social impact of bolloxing surestart and taking an axe to policing / the criminal justice system were just the start.
Even in accounting terms, these policies didn’t make sense. It costs way more to fix these problems, 10-20 years down the line.
Osborne was severely short-sighted, let alone socially irresponsible in many of his decisions. Perhaps there was some naïveté, there. Perhaps they really believed that a big society would fill the gaps in the areas the state withdrew from?
Either way, naive or cynical, their policy decisions look pretty terrible in hindsight.
I don't disagree with most of that, but you can do the same for almost all governments. I liked the coalition because I felt that the Lib Dems softened the worst elements of conservatism just enough. Sadly they were then shafted in 2015, allowing the disastrous Tory majority that followed.
A lot of the problems the country has now were either created, worsened, or ignored during the Coalition years. It didn't feel as bad at the time, but I guess that's the nature of short-termism, until you catch up with the long term consequences.
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
More interesting is to turn that backwards - line it up on the RHS, (making it time before they stopped being LoTO) and indicate which ones became PM. They are all very volatile, but notice Cameron's trajectory declining to near zero net, Starmer trending sharply down, then slowly up, Kinnock achieving a net positive, but still never winning, and John Smith's trend down then up in the months before his death.
Then there's Blair. An outlier if ever there was one.
Long letter from EHRC to Badenoch on clarifying “sex” = “biological sex”
On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.
The potential implications of this change should be carefully identified and considered, with due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and in particular any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.
Biological sex IS sex. A man a biological adult male. A woman is a biological adult female.
Beyond that people can "identify" as whatever they want and their wishes should be respected out of courtesy and politeness but to deny the facts of human biology is anti-science and nothing more than flat-earthism.
I don't really understand how this is even a point of debate honestly? How have we got ourselves into this pickle over sex and human biology?
Sounds like I could attract a lot of 'sell' business @ 340 then. Max was keen too.
Don't think I'll do it though since we can't know if people will still be on PB and if so under the same name in 18 months time.
I would neither sell nor buy at 340. I think you're right. I was initially puzzled by this being both your central estimate and that it had more upside than downside - but I think on reflection I agree. If you were to offer me an evens bet on lower than 340, I'd take it. But the future in which Labour do MUCH better than 340 seems more plausible than the future where they do much worse than 340. So in spread terms, 340 seems right. How does that compare to what is available in the spread markets?
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
More interesting is to turn that backwards - line it up on the RHS, (making it time before they stopped being LoTO) and indicate which ones became PM. They are all very volatile, but notice Cameron's trajectory declining to near zero net, Starmer trending sharply down, then slowly up, Kinnock achieving a net positive, but still never winning, and John Smith's trend down then up in the months before his death.
Then there's Blair. An outlier if ever there was one.
The expenses scandal was when it all began going south for Cameron though we didn't really notice in the voting intention until Jan 2010.
Sounds like I could attract a lot of 'sell' business @ 340 then. Max was keen too.
Don't think I'll do it though since we can't know if people will still be on PB and if so under the same name in 18 months time.
I would neither sell nor buy at 340. I think you're right. I was initially puzzled by this being both your central estimate and that it had more upside than downside - but I think on reflection I agree. If you were to offer me an evens bet on lower than 340, I'd take it. But the future in which Labour do MUCH better than 340 seems more plausible than the future where they do much worse than 340. So in spread terms, 340 seems right. How does that compare to what is available in the spread markets?
I'm the only outfit offering spread prices atm, I think.
Long letter from EHRC to Badenoch on clarifying “sex” = “biological sex”
On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.
The potential implications of this change should be carefully identified and considered, with due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and in particular any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.
Sounds like I could attract a lot of 'sell' business @ 340 then. Max was keen too.
Don't think I'll do it though since we can't know if people will still be on PB and if so under the same name in 18 months time.
I'm leaving and coming backs a trubotubbs if I'm heavily losing that one...
(Or is turbotubbs2 the way to go?)
You can start posting "Zelenskyy is killing Ukrainians lol" messages, get yourself banned and that will deal with any awkward sums you owe others on here...
Sounds like I could attract a lot of 'sell' business @ 340 then. Max was keen too.
Don't think I'll do it though since we can't know if people will still be on PB and if so under the same name in 18 months time.
I'm leaving and coming backs a trubotubbs if I'm heavily losing that one...
(Or is turbotubbs2 the way to go?)
You can start posting "Zelenskyy is killing Ukrainians lol" messages, get yourself banned and that will deal with any awkward sums you owe others on here...
That particular piece of propaganda seems to have made its way into mainstream discourse about the war. I had somebody tell me that Ukraine was covering up the true death toll and we need a peace deal, and they didn't pick it up from internet forums.
I used to believe calls like this, but now I wonder whether they're just from attention seekers.
I read PB and don't get out much. What are "attention seekers"?
Pretty much anyone who calls into radio stations to air their lives for the nation to hear.
Basic rule - radio callers no more represent the nation than PBers.
I always wonder about callers into radio. Are the radio station desperate for anyone to call, perhaps to the extent of having admin staff on standby to do so, or do they get so many callers that they have a large degree of editorial control in deciding who reaches the air?
I think that depends. National (think radio 5 etc) probably have plenty. Local radio on the other hand seems to be a few that call ALL the time. I recall driving back from Ipswich one night to Norwich with the local radio call in show, and it was more like regulars down the pub.
Very much like the letters pages of local newspapers. I assume that the peiople who get a letter printed every week are the people who write in every week.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
We heard little else from them.
LOL. "Worse out than in", although mathematically equivalent to "better in than out", is very different emotionally. I seem to remember we've already had this discussion in recent days.
We have - and your 'point' hasn't got any better. It's inane. Staying in the EU was the status quo. Same old same old. You can't market this as the ticket to a thrilling new life.
"Vote Remain. Let's carry on as we are. It's gonna be a blast!"
C'mon.
What you can do is what was done - stress that leaving would make us poorer and weaker. Which has duly happened, hence the consensus it was a mistake.
The bit in bold says it all. The Remain campaign was negative and argued "worse out than in" not "better in than out" - if you admit as much, why are you disagreeing with me? We agree!
What would be better than trolling - which I have limited patience for these days as you know - is if you can provide a concrete example of a big positive uplifting argument for staying in the EU that the Remain campaign should have made but didn't.
Some actual examples of things that we benefited from by being in the EU. Not described as "we will/might lose this if we leave".
Such as? Come on let's have a sample 'campaigning sentence' ...
"Perhaps THE most excellent of the many excellent things about EU membership is ... Driver to complete"
Why are you asking me? I voted Leave not least because the Remain campaign didn't come up with any examples! Unless you're implying that there are no such examples?
I used to believe calls like this, but now I wonder whether they're just from attention seekers.
I read PB and don't get out much. What are "attention seekers"?
Pretty much anyone who calls into radio stations to air their lives for the nation to hear.
Basic rule - radio callers no more represent the nation than PBers.
I always wonder about callers into radio. Are the radio station desperate for anyone to call, perhaps to the extent of having admin staff on standby to do so, or do they get so many callers that they have a large degree of editorial control in deciding who reaches the air?
I think that depends. National (think radio 5 etc) probably have plenty. Local radio on the other hand seems to be a few that call ALL the time. I recall driving back from Ipswich one night to Norwich with the local radio call in show, and it was more like regulars down the pub.
Very much like the letters pages of local newspapers. I assume that the peiople who get a letter printed every week are the people who write in every week.
Indeed such as the mad anti-vaxxer down the road from us who protested about vaccination and then saw her aged husband die of covid. A new letter to the local paper every week...
Sounds like I could attract a lot of 'sell' business @ 340 then. Max was keen too.
Don't think I'll do it though since we can't know if people will still be on PB and if so under the same name in 18 months time.
I would neither sell nor buy at 340. I think you're right. I was initially puzzled by this being both your central estimate and that it had more upside than downside - but I think on reflection I agree. If you were to offer me an evens bet on lower than 340, I'd take it. But the future in which Labour do MUCH better than 340 seems more plausible than the future where they do much worse than 340. So in spread terms, 340 seems right. How does that compare to what is available in the spread markets?
Yes 340 seems about right. Maybe I'd be taking it a little lower seeing an apparent improvement in Sunak's polling, although I'm not sure that will be sustained, and Scotland is looking better for Labour now. Of course Starmer is no Blair, but I think Sunak has less connection with the electorate than Major did, too - and nobody is predicting a 1997 style landslide even if 340 does imply a big gain in seats. I also think that bizarrely a lot of the enthusiasm for Labour in 97 actually came in the wake of Labour's victory not before, and Blair's response to Diana's death really cemented his popularity with the public (the "people's princess" speech - it was awful but it was also brilliant - what an actor). I could see a wafer thin Labour majority or Labour most seats but no majority, or a bigger Labour win. I can't see the Tories forming the next government though, I just can't see it.
Sounds like I could attract a lot of 'sell' business @ 340 then. Max was keen too.
Don't think I'll do it though since we can't know if people will still be on PB and if so under the same name in 18 months time.
I would neither sell nor buy at 340. I think you're right. I was initially puzzled by this being both your central estimate and that it had more upside than downside - but I think on reflection I agree. If you were to offer me an evens bet on lower than 340, I'd take it. But the future in which Labour do MUCH better than 340 seems more plausible than the future where they do much worse than 340. So in spread terms, 340 seems right. How does that compare to what is available in the spread markets?
Yes 340 seems about right. Maybe I'd be taking it a little lower seeing an apparent improvement in Sunak's polling, although I'm not sure that will be sustained, and Scotland is looking better for Labour now. Of course Starmer is no Blair, but I think Sunak has less connection with the electorate than Major did, too - and nobody is predicting a 1997 style landslide even if 340 does imply a big gain in seats. I also think that bizarrely a lot of the enthusiasm for Labour in 97 actually came in the wake of Labour's victory not before, and Blair's response to Diana's death really cemented his popularity with the public (the "people's princess" speech - it was awful but it was also brilliant - what an actor). I could see a wafer thin Labour majority or Labour most seats but no majority, or a bigger Labour win. I can't see the Tories forming the next government though, I just can't see it.
Apart from @Heathener of course, but she's clearly in a world of her own.
Since you are discussing endangered species, I thought I might mention two partial successes:
First, the whooping crane: "After being pushed to the brink of extinction by unregulated hunting and loss of habitat to just 21 wild and two captive whooping cranes by 1941, conservation efforts have led to a limited recovery.[3] The total number of cranes in the surviving migratory population, plus three reintroduced flocks and in captivity, now exceeds 800 birds." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whooping_crane
Second, the California condor: "A conservation plan put in place by the United States government led to the capture of all the remaining wild condors by 1987, with a total population of 27 individuals.[8] These surviving birds were bred at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and the Los Angeles Zoo. Numbers rose through captive breeding, and beginning in 1991, condors were reintroduced into the wild. Since then, their population has grown, but the California condor remains one of the world's rarest bird species. In December 2020 there were 504 California condors living in the wild or in captivity,[9] while by December 2022 the population totaled 537, of which 336 lived in the wild." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_condor
The steady progress with both species is promising.
And I believe that progress in biology may well make it possible, within the next 50 years, to revive extinct species such as the passenger pigeon, the paddlefish, and the baiji.
(I'd like to hear about successes like those with the crane and the condor in other parts of the world.)
Long letter from EHRC to Badenoch on clarifying “sex” = “biological sex”
On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.
The potential implications of this change should be carefully identified and considered, with due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and in particular any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.
Biological sex IS sex. A man a biological adult male. A woman is a biological adult female.
Beyond that people can "identify" as whatever they want and their wishes should be respected out of courtesy and politeness but to deny the facts of human biology is anti-science and nothing more than flat-earthism.
I don't really understand how this is even a point of debate honestly? How have we got ourselves into this pickle over sex and human biology?
Gender/Queer theory proponents argue that “gender” (an innate sense of self) is real and “sex” is merely “assigned” at birth and largely irrelevant. Unfortunately the institutional capture by such thinkers (sic) is non-trivial - see RSE in schools and Stonewall. There’s a reason they demand “no debate” and mindlessly chant “Trans women are women”. No they’re not. Men who identify as women aren’t women, they’re men. And a horrendous medical scandal is unfolding with children being sterilised in the name of this “theory”. In the US in particular it’s dire with a dialogue of the deaf - the Dems unthinkingly endorsing “affirmative care castration while the GOP is imposing state bans - which will hurt the few who this treatment may be appropriate for. Even super woke New Zealand has stopped pushing the “puberty blockers are fully reversible” lie. But in the US it’s “carry on sterilising” and President Biden entertaining that embarrassing grifter Dylan Mulvaney in the White House.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Individual countries have always had the ability to implement eGates, and to treat EEA and UK citizens equally. Portugal announced their intention to roll out the gates at all major airports last year. When I flew to Rome in September, they had them too. In Austria in March, the gates were installed (and the signs included the British flag) but the official apologised that they were not yet working for British passport holders.
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
In fact, my experience of some EU destinations (e.g. Canary Islands) is that e-gates are in place and most Brits have the right passports for them but many EU citizens do not. So we queue less than they do.
ISO/IEC 7501-1:2008 has been obligatory since 2012, so I don't think that's going to last.
Won't some or many EU citizens be travelling on ID cards, not having a passport? Do the ID cards work in eGates?
If they've left the Schengen zone, then surely they'll have had to take their passport with them?
No, you can travel throughout the EU with just a national ID card. The only reason why UK citizens could not do that (pre-brexit) is because the UK has no national ID card.
Eh?
If the EU citizens are traveling around the Schengen zone, then they won't be going through passport gates at all.
If they are going through passport gates, it must be because they are traveling from outside the Schengen zone which - except for very few exceptions (like Ireland) - means they will need to carry a passport.
Yup. I know Jersey just had to make a law tweak to allow French day-trippers in and out on their French ID cards as it caused an almost extinction of French school trips as so few have passports which not only wasn’t ideal economically for the island but also reduced the links between Jersey and Normandy and Brittany culturally.
Do we have a final result in the fishing wars, yet?
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
We heard little else from them.
LOL. "Worse out than in", although mathematically equivalent to "better in than out", is very different emotionally. I seem to remember we've already had this discussion in recent days.
We have - and your 'point' hasn't got any better. It's inane. Staying in the EU was the status quo. Same old same old. You can't market this as the ticket to a thrilling new life.
"Vote Remain. Let's carry on as we are. It's gonna be a blast!"
C'mon.
What you can do is what was done - stress that leaving would make us poorer and weaker. Which has duly happened, hence the consensus it was a mistake.
The bit in bold says it all. The Remain campaign was negative and argued "worse out than in" not "better in than out" - if you admit as much, why are you disagreeing with me? We agree!
What would be better than trolling - which I have limited patience for these days as you know - is if you can provide a concrete example of a big positive uplifting argument for staying in the EU that the Remain campaign should have made but didn't.
Some actual examples of things that we benefited from by being in the EU. Not described as "we will/might lose this if we leave".
Such as? Come on let's have a sample 'campaigning sentence' ...
"Perhaps THE most excellent of the many excellent things about EU membership is ... Driver to complete"
Why are you asking me? I voted Leave not least because the Remain campaign didn't come up with any examples! Unless you're implying that there are no such examples?
A person who keeps claiming the Remain campaign missed a trick by not making positive arguments for EU membership really ought to be able to give at least one example of what they mean. If they can't one would have to conclude they are ... no, let's not pre-empt matters, let's not assume you can't do this until you've failed another couple of times.
Long letter from EHRC to Badenoch on clarifying “sex” = “biological sex”
On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.
The potential implications of this change should be carefully identified and considered, with due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and in particular any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.
The fact that there is even any need for a proposal to 'redefine' sex to mean, err, sex, shows how completely through the looking glass this has got.
The problem is the EA sometimes uses “sex” and “gender” as synonyms…..more innocent times….
You need to be very careful confusing the two: only the other day I sidled up to my wife and said "the kids are out, do you fancy heading upstairs for some gender", and she looked at me as if I was quite mad.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
We heard little else from them.
LOL. "Worse out than in", although mathematically equivalent to "better in than out", is very different emotionally. I seem to remember we've already had this discussion in recent days.
We have - and your 'point' hasn't got any better. It's inane. Staying in the EU was the status quo. Same old same old. You can't market this as the ticket to a thrilling new life.
"Vote Remain. Let's carry on as we are. It's gonna be a blast!"
C'mon.
What you can do is what was done - stress that leaving would make us poorer and weaker. Which has duly happened, hence the consensus it was a mistake.
The bit in bold says it all. The Remain campaign was negative and argued "worse out than in" not "better in than out" - if you admit as much, why are you disagreeing with me? We agree!
What would be better than trolling - which I have limited patience for these days as you know - is if you can provide a concrete example of a big positive uplifting argument for staying in the EU that the Remain campaign should have made but didn't.
Some actual examples of things that we benefited from by being in the EU. Not described as "we will/might lose this if we leave".
Such as? Come on let's have a sample 'campaigning sentence' ...
"Perhaps THE most excellent of the many excellent things about EU membership is ... Driver to complete"
Why are you asking me? I voted Leave not least because the Remain campaign didn't come up with any examples! Unless you're implying that there are no such examples?
A person who keeps claiming the Remain campaign missed a trick by not making positive arguments for EU membership really ought to be able to give at least one example of what they mean. If they can't one would have to conclude they are ... no, let's not pre-empt matters, let's not assume you can't until you've failed another couple of times.
I didn't say they "missed a trick", that's a complete invention on your part. What's that you bang on about arguing in good faith?
The conclusion is that the Remain campaign used the most persuasive arguments they had available, which were all negative arguments. There were positive, honest arguments to be made for the Project of ever-closer union, as well as for the principles of the Four Freedoms, but I wouldn't pretend they would have been referendum-winning ones.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
We heard little else from them.
LOL. "Worse out than in", although mathematically equivalent to "better in than out", is very different emotionally. I seem to remember we've already had this discussion in recent days.
We have - and your 'point' hasn't got any better. It's inane. Staying in the EU was the status quo. Same old same old. You can't market this as the ticket to a thrilling new life.
"Vote Remain. Let's carry on as we are. It's gonna be a blast!"
C'mon.
What you can do is what was done - stress that leaving would make us poorer and weaker. Which has duly happened, hence the consensus it was a mistake.
The bit in bold says it all. The Remain campaign was negative and argued "worse out than in" not "better in than out" - if you admit as much, why are you disagreeing with me? We agree!
What would be better than trolling - which I have limited patience for these days as you know - is if you can provide a concrete example of a big positive uplifting argument for staying in the EU that the Remain campaign should have made but didn't.
Some actual examples of things that we benefited from by being in the EU. Not described as "we will/might lose this if we leave".
Such as? Come on let's have a sample 'campaigning sentence' ...
"Perhaps THE most excellent of the many excellent things about EU membership is ... Driver to complete"
Why are you asking me? I voted Leave not least because the Remain campaign didn't come up with any examples! Unless you're implying that there are no such examples?
A person who keeps claiming the Remain campaign missed a trick by not making positive arguments for EU membership really ought to be able to give at least one example of what they mean. If they can't one would have to conclude they are ... no, let's not pre-empt matters, let's not assume you can't do this until you've failed another couple of times.
I think that the Remain campaign was rather negative - the impression was basically don't vote leave because if you do we will be worse off. Now that may well be true (seems to be) but it was not a positive message, Perhaps focussing on opportunities for the youth of the nation to work and study abroad?
The issue was that both side told lies (or possibly said what they believed to be true). I think many leavers believed that a free trade agreement with the EU was the same as being in the single market, and its now abundantly clear that that is not the case.
Long letter from EHRC to Badenoch on clarifying “sex” = “biological sex”
On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.
The potential implications of this change should be carefully identified and considered, with due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and in particular any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.
The fact that there is even any need for a proposal to 'redefine' sex to mean, err, sex, shows how completely through the looking glass this has got.
The problem is the EA sometimes uses “sex” and “gender” as synonyms…..more innocent times….
You need to be very careful confusing the two: only the other day I sidled up to my wife and said "the kids are out, do you fancy heading upstairs for some gender", and she looked at me as if I was quite mad.
You're assuming she 'didn't' know what you meant? How long have you been married!?
I think many leavers believed that a free trade agreement with the EU was the same as being in the single market, and its now abundantly clear that that is not the case.
Brexiteers claimed "nobody was threatening our place in the single market" which I think is pretty close to claiming we would still be in it...
I made a small SpreadEx bet on sterling in the wake of Sunak's deal, and it's been very profitable.
I can't decide whether I should let it run (I think Sterling is heading to 1.35 in the medium term), or close out half the position to bank some profits.
Long letter from EHRC to Badenoch on clarifying “sex” = “biological sex”
On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.
The potential implications of this change should be carefully identified and considered, with due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and in particular any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.
The fact that there is even any need for a proposal to 'redefine' sex to mean, err, sex, shows how completely through the looking glass this has got.
The problem is the EA sometimes uses “sex” and “gender” as synonyms…..more innocent times….
You need to be very careful confusing the two: only the other day I sidled up to my wife and said "the kids are out, do you fancy heading upstairs for some gender", and she looked at me as if I was quite mad.
I'm told there's a concept of 'maintenance sex', where the woman consents to sex to help maintain the relationship.
So you could try 'Can I schedule some maintenance for Saturday night?'.
Comments
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1642905409663954944
Edit: And you would have hoped a feminist like Shelagh would have challenged him on his misogynistic assumption that a wife must vote the same way as her husband or she faces being divorced?
The Finnish army has more trained soldiers and more weaponry than the UK.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1643139083072425985
But it doesn't feel like 1997 yet, and Labour has yet to have the full fire of the media on it scrutinising everything. Already they seem to have used the windfall tax for five different projects.
I'm pretty sure I want Starmer in power. I wouldn't be averse to a coalition - the last one was my 'favourite' government of recent times. I don't think anything is set in stone yet though.
Basic rule - radio callers no more represent the nation than PBers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY32_bJ63EA
Welcome, Finland.
The disastrous social impact of bolloxing surestart and taking an axe to policing / the criminal justice system were just the start.
Even in accounting terms, these policies didn’t make sense. It costs way more to fix these problems, 10-20 years down the line.
Osborne was severely short-sighted, let alone socially irresponsible in many of his decisions. Perhaps there was some naïveté, there. Perhaps they really believed that a big society would fill the gaps in the areas the state withdrew from?
Either way, naive or cynical, their policy decisions look pretty terrible in hindsight.
If the EU citizens are traveling around the Schengen zone, then they won't be going through passport gates at all.
If they are going through passport gates, it must be because they are traveling from outside the Schengen zone which - except for very few exceptions (like Ireland) - means they will need to carry a passport.
When my father was a senior policeman he was often required to give interviews to the media. He was expert at giving nothing away and basically nothing he said ever got used. A masterclass.
Sadly Wilts police has changed in the years since he retired (its been a while) and we've had dickheads like Mike Veale essentially declaring ex PM's as paedophiles on national TV.
"Perhaps THE most excellent of the many excellent things about EU membership is ... Driver to complete"
https://www.politico.eu/article/dildos-not-drones-ukraine-activists-hack-russia-account-and-buy-25k-worth-of-sex-toys/
Creating the OBR was the only good idea Osborne had.
On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.
The potential implications of this change should be carefully identified and considered, with due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and in particular any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.
https://equalityhumanrights.com/en/file/43056/download
Don't think I'll do it though since we can't know if people will still be on PB and if so under the same name in 18 months time.
He didn't think this through, did he?
So after invading Ukraine he would need to invade the rest of Eastern Europe. Then Western Europe.
Until there is no more border with NATO....
Does anyone know if a frenchman or spaniard needs a passport to go to Guadeloupe, a not-in-schenghen department of france? I would guess an EU ID card would be ok there...
Edit: looked it up, an EU ID will get you into Guadeloupe, despite it not being in schenghen.
Then there's Blair. An outlier if ever there was one.
(Or is turbotubbs2 the way to go?)
Beyond that people can "identify" as whatever they want and their wishes should be respected out of courtesy and politeness but to deny the facts of human biology is anti-science and nothing more than flat-earthism.
I don't really understand how this is even a point of debate honestly? How have we got ourselves into this pickle over sex and human biology?
If you were to offer me an evens bet on lower than 340, I'd take it. But the future in which Labour do MUCH better than 340 seems more plausible than the future where they do much worse than 340. So in spread terms, 340 seems right. How does that compare to what is available in the spread markets?
I could see a wafer thin Labour majority or Labour most seats but no majority, or a bigger Labour win. I can't see the Tories forming the next government though, I just can't see it.
First, the whooping crane: "After being pushed to the brink of extinction by unregulated hunting and loss of habitat to just 21 wild and two captive whooping cranes by 1941, conservation efforts have led to a limited recovery.[3] The total number of cranes in the surviving migratory population, plus three reintroduced flocks and in captivity, now exceeds 800 birds."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whooping_crane
(Ultralight airplanes were used to teach the captive-raised cranes migration routes:
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/operation-migration ) Would DuraAce like to have helped with that effort? I like to think so.
Second, the California condor: "A conservation plan put in place by the United States government led to the capture of all the remaining wild condors by 1987, with a total population of 27 individuals.[8] These surviving birds were bred at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and the Los Angeles Zoo. Numbers rose through captive breeding, and beginning in 1991, condors were reintroduced into the wild. Since then, their population has grown, but the California condor remains one of the world's rarest bird species. In December 2020 there were 504 California condors living in the wild or in captivity,[9] while by December 2022 the population totaled 537, of which 336 lived in the wild."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_condor
The steady progress with both species is promising.
And I believe that progress in biology may well make it possible, within the next 50 years, to revive extinct species such as the passenger pigeon, the paddlefish, and the baiji.
(I'd like to hear about successes like those with the crane and the condor in other parts of the world.)
BJO please explain!
https://www.ft.com/content/343c515c-04f0-4f21-b56e-ccbd24ca0043
The conclusion is that the Remain campaign used the most persuasive arguments they had available, which were all negative arguments. There were positive, honest arguments to be made for the Project of ever-closer union, as well as for the principles of the Four Freedoms, but I wouldn't pretend they would have been referendum-winning ones.
The issue was that both side told lies (or possibly said what they believed to be true). I think many leavers believed that a free trade agreement with the EU was the same as being in the single market, and its now abundantly clear that that is not the case.
I can't decide whether I should let it run (I think Sterling is heading to 1.35 in the medium term), or close out half the position to bank some profits.
So you could try 'Can I schedule some maintenance for Saturday night?'.