I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
It’s not perfect but you really need to see the decisions made re the UK. The message leaving the ECHR sends would be appalling for the UK at a time where liberal democracies are under threat . It would also be an insult to Churchill and those UK lawyers who helped draft it .
Churchill is just a filthy liberal.
On the subject of the ECHR - how does the French chucking an Imam off the island sit with that?
Not new, but here is James O’Brien going so far down the trans rights rabbit hole that he’s berating a woman for not wanting men to be getting changed in the next cubicle to her
He is a raving lunatic
James O'Brien criticises female caller and says she should feel comfortable getting changed in the same changing room as him.
When we go to Centerparcs we use the mixed sex "family" changing rooms. We go into a cubicle to get changed, someone else male and/or female or typically both will be in the neighbouring cubicles.
So long as the cubicles are private, what difference does it make?
I would have thought quite a few women would feel uncomfortable half naked being separated only by a curtain in a changing room from some random bloke. The Center Parcs changing rooms have locks on them
I went to Center Parcs with an extended family group of my inlaws ast week. "Welcome to Center parc's!" the chalkboard in the villa cheerily announced. My wife quietly removed the apostrophe. But I was delighted that during the first night other anonymous hands had reverased the fifth and sixth letters of 'Center', and, later, changed the "c" of 'parcs' to a k. Never felt more at home in the family I married into.
What deal did you get on the mortgage you took out to pay for it?
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
• average person doesn’t know Israel systematically committing massacres.
CNN’s analysis of dozens of videos and testimonies from 22 eyewitnesses’ casts doubt on the Israeli military's timeline of February 29, when more than 100 people were killed and 700 injured during a food aid delivery southwest of Gaza City.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
Which simply says Merkel was an idiot.
There was a sufficiency of idiocy, that all could partake to their contentment. And they did.
Thanks, they mentioned they had a good set that lasted them many years but was on their last legs, my mother said she would get them for their anniversary.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
Which simply says Merkel was an idiot.
There was a sufficiency of idiocy, that all could partake to their contentment. And they did.
Quite. By rights Leave should have lost but complacency killed Remain.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
• average person doesn’t know Israel systematically committing massacres.
CNN’s analysis of dozens of videos and testimonies from 22 eyewitnesses’ casts doubt on the Israeli military's timeline of February 29, when more than 100 people were killed and 700 injured during a food aid delivery southwest of Gaza City.
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
It’s not propaganda. Showing the reality re deaths .
Its absolutely propaganda to try and pretend all deaths are equal.
An army fighting proportionately, trying to minimise civilian figures as the IDF rightly are, is not the same as a terrorist group killing as many civilians as they can.
If Hamas releases the hostages and lays down their weapons, the war is over.
If Israel lays down their weapons, Hamas would kill every last Israeli.
IDF likely have killed all the hostages already
Okay, that's a really shit thing to say.
Firstly, you have no evidence of it. It is the sort of thing a Hamas apologist would say when Hamas say that all the hostages are dead.
Secondly, they were only hostages because Hamas kidnapped them, during an orgy of killing and rape. Blaming the IDF for their deaths in that manner just excuses Hamas' evil.
Thirdly, even *if* it is true, do you think that is because it was an accident of war, the IDF deliberately targeted them; or Hamas killed them and wants idiots to blame the IDF?
But again: the hostages are only there because Hamas kidnapped them. *If* Hamas has released those hostages in the first month after their attack on Israel, then much of the reason for Israel's attacks on Gaza would have been removed. But they did not.
However they died, the hostage's deaths are on Hamas.
Thanks, they mentioned they had a good set that lasted them many years but was on their last legs, my mother said she would get them for their anniversary.
Might be best to inquire of your mother what their last set was like. Was it chunky earthenware like Spode, or was it thin elegant porcelain? Is it for special occasions or for everyday?
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
Can’t say I’m loving the free new bachelor life in the bedsit, thanks.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
Which simply says Merkel was an idiot.
It was a stupid misadventure for all concerned.
Of course, the irony being that lots of what Cameron asked for the EU has subsequently moved on especially on migration.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
Which simply says Merkel was an idiot.
It was a stupid misadventure for all concerned.
“It would be possible to say without exaggeration that the Leavers were the stupidest men in England if we had not frequent occasion to meet the Remainers.”
Yousaf is the worst SNP leader since Swinney and doesn't have the charisma and broad appeal Salmond and Sturgeon had when they led the party. Looks like Labour will be first party in Scotland again for the first time since Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown, won Scotland in 2010.
If the LDs get 40-50 seats they may well overtake the SNP as third party too at Westminster
Thanks, they mentioned they had a good set that lasted them many years but was on their last legs, my mother said she would get them for their anniversary.
Might be best to inquire of your mother what their last set was like. Was it chunky earthenware like Spode, or was it thin elegant porcelain? Is it for special occasions or for everyday?
Special occasions like if the King or I visit them.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
• average person doesn’t know Israel systematically committing massacres.
CNN’s analysis of dozens of videos and testimonies from 22 eyewitnesses’ casts doubt on the Israeli military's timeline of February 29, when more than 100 people were killed and 700 injured during a food aid delivery southwest of Gaza City.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
The Lord God didn't even marry the mother of His only begotten son!
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Odd how you set Year Zero to be 80 years. I mean, it's not as if anything had been happening to Jews a little over 80 years ago...
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Yes, Hamas and other terrorists like the PLO, Fatah etc have been committing murder and rejecting peace at every turn.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
On their wedding day everyone wants to commit.
But I want is not I get. Over time things change.
Not for most if they compromise and accept they don't always come first in a marriage
Yousaf is the worst SNP leader since Swinney and doesn't have the charisma and broad appeal Salmond and Sturgeon had when they led the party. Looks like Labour will be first party in Scotland again for the first time since Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown, won Scotland in 2010.
If the LDs get 40-50 seats they may well overtake the SNP as third party too at Westminster
There have only been two since and both were rather capable.
Yousaf is the worst SNP leader since Swinney and doesn't have the charisma and broad appeal Salmond and Sturgeon had when they led the party. Looks like Labour will be first party in Scotland again for the first time since Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown, won Scotland in 2010.
If the LDs get 40-50 seats they may well overtake the SNP as third party too at Westminster
Yousaf is the worst SNP leader since Swinney and doesn't have the charisma and broad appeal Salmond and Sturgeon had when they led the party. Looks like Labour will be first party in Scotland again for the first time since Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown, won Scotland in 2010.
If the LDs get 40-50 seats they may well overtake the SNP as third party too at Westminster
Yousaf is the worst SNP leader since Swinney and doesn't have the charisma and broad appeal Salmond and Sturgeon had when they led the party. Looks like Labour will be first party in Scotland again for the first time since Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown, won Scotland in 2010.
If the LDs get 40-50 seats they may well overtake the SNP as third party too at Westminster
There have only been two since and both were rather capable.
The SNP were very lucky to get Salmond and Sturgeon. Thankfully, their luck appears to be running out.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
On their wedding day everyone wants to commit.
But I want is not I get. Over time things change.
Not for most if they compromise and accept they don't always come first in a marriage
Yousaf is the worst SNP leader since Swinney and doesn't have the charisma and broad appeal Salmond and Sturgeon had when they led the party. Looks like Labour will be first party in Scotland again for the first time since Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown, won Scotland in 2010.
If the LDs get 40-50 seats they may well overtake the SNP as third party too at Westminster
There have only been two since and both were rather capable.
Swinney however lost 8 seats at Holyrood in 2003 compared to the MSPs Salmond had won in 1999, Salmond replaced him at the following election and won most seats for the SNP for the first time.
Swinney is the only SNP leader since Holyrood was founded in 1999 never to have won a Holyrood election or become FM and it looks like Yousaf may follow suit in 2026 on the former with Sarwar replacing him as FM after the next Holyrood polls
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
On their wedding day everyone wants to commit.
But I want is not I get. Over time things change.
Not for most if they compromise and accept they don't always come first in a marriage
Not coming first is fine. Not doing so at all is the issue.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
Yousaf is the worst SNP leader since Swinney and doesn't have the charisma and broad appeal Salmond and Sturgeon had when they led the party. Looks like Labour will be first party in Scotland again for the first time since Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown, won Scotland in 2010.
If the LDs get 40-50 seats they may well overtake the SNP as third party too at Westminster
"Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown.." More likely that SKir is/was Broon's protégé
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
How would you rate a bad divorce?
Still better than a bad marriage.
I compare it to dentistry. Everybody wants healthy, clean teeth (good, healthy, committed marriage).
But if you have a badly rotten decaying tooth then sometimes extraction (divorce), however unpleasant, is necessary.
Doesn't make it any more pleasant, but if that point is reached then by then its the right thing to do.
Yousaf is the worst SNP leader since Swinney and doesn't have the charisma and broad appeal Salmond and Sturgeon had when they led the party. Looks like Labour will be first party in Scotland again for the first time since Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown, won Scotland in 2010.
If the LDs get 40-50 seats they may well overtake the SNP as third party too at Westminster
"Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown.." More likely that SKir is/was Broon's protégé
Confusing Starmer with Blair is not a good sign for a loyal Con like HYUFD!
On topic there could be some interesting dynamics at play with both the Tories and SNP tanking. Recent polls have the Tories retaining 41% of their 2019 vote, the SNP 66%. Labour pick up 20% of the SNP vote and 12% of the Tory vote - but I suspect that is central belt driven.
Outside the central belt? How does a plague on both your houses play when Labour don't participate in local politics?
Surprise victories for the LDs in the North East of Scotland?
Sure to be some shocks now they are banning all forms of heating other than heat pumps and electric.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
On their wedding day everyone wants to commit.
But I want is not I get. Over time things change.
Not for most if they compromise and accept they don't always come first in a marriage
I need to get my mind out of the gutter.
Nonsense. Come on into the gutter - the water's lovely. Or, if not lovely, certainly moist.
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Israel had to build some of the world's best defences to counter the constant barrage of rocket attacks launched with murderous intent by their innocent and oppressed neighbours
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
On their wedding day everyone wants to commit.
But I want is not I get. Over time things change.
Not for most if they compromise and accept they don't always come first in a marriage
I need to get my mind out of the gutter.
Nonsense. Come on into the gutter - the water's lovely. Or, if not lovely, certainly moist.
Mud, mud, glorious mud / Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood / Come down to the hollow / Where we can wallow / In mud, mud, glorious mud
Thanks, they mentioned they had a good set that lasted them many years but was on their last legs, my mother said she would get them for their anniversary.
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Yes, Hamas and other terrorists like the PLO, Fatah etc have been committing murder and rejecting peace at every turn.
I see. So basically it's the peace lovers with the six-pointed star flag, who've been lying down and taking it so tolerantly for so long, accepting such huge casualties, but winning Eurovision with "Hallelujah", and their opponents the killy killy stabby rapists who fly a stripy flag with a triangle at one end and who commit murder for the sake of it and who have been allowed to get away with their wickedness almost scot free for such a very long time. Glad we cleared that up.
Israel today murdered three sons of Ismail Haniyeh who were visiting relations in a refugee camp for Eid, and the Israeli military said they were on their way to "carry out terrorist activities in the central area of the Gaza Strip". What could that even possibly mean - "terrorist activities"? The enemy of the resistance in the Gaza Strip is the Israeli military. It's not innocent civilians waiting at bus stops.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
On their wedding day everyone wants to commit.
But I want is not I get. Over time things change.
Not for most if they compromise and accept they don't always come first in a marriage
I don’t think the ideas of compromise and not always coming first are familiar concepts to Barty.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
On their wedding day everyone wants to commit.
But I want is not I get. Over time things change.
Not for most if they compromise and accept they don't always come first in a marriage
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Yes, Hamas and other terrorists like the PLO, Fatah etc have been committing murder and rejecting peace at every turn.
I see. So basically it's the peace lovers with the six-pointed star flag, who've been lying down and taking it so tolerantly for so long, accepting such huge casualties, but winning Eurovision with "Hallelujah", and their opponents the killy killy stabby rapists who fly a stripy flag with a triangle at one end and who commit murder for the sake of it and who have been allowed to get away with their wickedness almost scot free for such a very long time. Glad we cleared that up.
Pretty much.
Israel are the victim here. They accepted peace in 1948 and were attacked by Egypt and Jordan, which is the only reason no Palestinian state exists. Time and again since they've gone for peace.
Hamas did this in part to blow up peace talks Israel were conducting with Saudi Arabia.
Its not Israel that doesn't want peace.
The lot of the Palestinians would improve a lot, when their leadership actually gives a damn about them.
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
On their wedding day everyone wants to commit.
But I want is not I get. Over time things change.
Not for most if they compromise and accept they don't always come first in a marriage
I need to get my mind out of the gutter.
Nonsense. Come on into the gutter - the water's lovely. Or, if not lovely, certainly moist.
Mud, mud, glorious mud / Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood / Come down to the hollow / Where we can wallow / In mud, mud, glorious mud
This is the song of the mud, The pale yellow glistening mud that covers the hills like satin; The grey gleaming silvery mud that is spread like enamel over the valleys; The frothing, squirting, spurting, liquid mud that gurgles along the road beds; The thick elastic mud that is kneaded and pounded and squeezed under the hoofs of the horses; The invincible, inexhaustible mud of the war zone.
I've always found it quite odd that if you mention English pottery, people think of Stoke. But Derby has both Royal Crown Derby and Denby (*), both of which still exist - unlike most Stoke potteries.
Family legend has it that I am related to John Heath, the banker that founded Royal Crown Derby, on my mother's side. Also that he lost all his money in one of the financial bubbles. My dad's side of the family tree were much more successful with money...
Yousaf is the worst SNP leader since Swinney and doesn't have the charisma and broad appeal Salmond and Sturgeon had when they led the party. Looks like Labour will be first party in Scotland again for the first time since Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown, won Scotland in 2010.
If the LDs get 40-50 seats they may well overtake the SNP as third party too at Westminster
"Starmer's protege, Gordon Brown.." More likely that SKir is/was Broon's protégé
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
If you don't want to commit to marriage for the rest of your life or their life with your partner, don't get married in the first place
On their wedding day everyone wants to commit.
But I want is not I get. Over time things change.
Not for most if they compromise and accept they don't always come first in a marriage
I've always found it quite odd that if you mention English pottery, people think of Stoke. But Derby has both Royal Crown Derby and Denby (*), both of which still exist - unlike most Stoke potteries.
Family legend has it that I am related to John Heath, the banker that founded Royal Crown Derby, on my mother's side. Also that he lost all his money in one of the financial bubbles. My dad's side of the family tree were much more successful with money...
(*) Okay, a few miles outside Derby...
Bovey Tracey in Devon? Not that I know a monkey's about the pottery - it's the granite tors and the tramway I like (the clay coming from granite weathering obvs). They used to import the clay to Scottish papermills, I believe, too.
It was made for ages, so whole sets second hand but not cheap.
Cheers guys.
One thing, will I be making the heirs of Tony Wedgewood Benn richer by buying these?
Look at it as benefiting the heirs of Josiah Wedgwood. Interesting chap,capitalist, improver (canals, also), Lunar Society member, anti slavery, liberal etc. (if still with a sense of where the bottom line was).
Or Spode. (N. B. Nothing to do with the Wodehousian chap in black footer shorts.)
Not new, but here is James O’Brien going so far down the trans rights rabbit hole that he’s berating a woman for not wanting men to be getting changed in the next cubicle to her
He is a raving lunatic
James O'Brien criticises female caller and says she should feel comfortable getting changed in the same changing room as him.
When we go to Centerparcs we use the mixed sex "family" changing rooms. We go into a cubicle to get changed, someone else male and/or female or typically both will be in the neighbouring cubicles.
So long as the cubicles are private, what difference does it make?
I would have thought quite a few women would feel uncomfortable half naked being separated only by a curtain in a changing room from some random bloke. The Center Parcs changing rooms have locks on them
I went to Center Parcs with an extended family group of my inlaws ast week. "Welcome to Center parc's!" the chalkboard in the villa cheerily announced. My wife quietly removed the apostrophe. But I was delighted that during the first night other anonymous hands had reverased the fifth and sixth letters of 'Center', and, later, changed the "c" of 'parcs' to a k. Never felt more at home in the family I married into.
What deal did you get on the mortgage you took out to pay for it?
No kidding. Center Parcs are possibly the most overpriced holiday in the world.
A few years ago, we went from Center Parcs to a very posh hotel in the South of France, and were staggered to discover we were paying less there.
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Israel had to build some of the world's best defences to counter the constant barrage of rocket attacks launched with murderous intent by their innocent and oppressed neighbours
Not taking sides, but the Palestinians were there first. As far as they’re concerned!
Not new, but here is James O’Brien going so far down the trans rights rabbit hole that he’s berating a woman for not wanting men to be getting changed in the next cubicle to her
He is a raving lunatic
James O'Brien criticises female caller and says she should feel comfortable getting changed in the same changing room as him.
When we go to Centerparcs we use the mixed sex "family" changing rooms. We go into a cubicle to get changed, someone else male and/or female or typically both will be in the neighbouring cubicles.
So long as the cubicles are private, what difference does it make?
I would have thought quite a few women would feel uncomfortable half naked being separated only by a curtain in a changing room from some random bloke. The Center Parcs changing rooms have locks on them
I went to Center Parcs with an extended family group of my inlaws ast week. "Welcome to Center parc's!" the chalkboard in the villa cheerily announced. My wife quietly removed the apostrophe. But I was delighted that during the first night other anonymous hands had reverased the fifth and sixth letters of 'Center', and, later, changed the "c" of 'parcs' to a k. Never felt more at home in the family I married into.
What deal did you get on the mortgage you took out to pay for it?
No kidding. Center Parcs are possibly the most overpriced holiday in the world.
A few years ago, we went from Center Parcs to a very posh hotel in the South of France, and were staggered to discover we were paying less there.
A century ago the difference was enormous. Agatha Chistie, as a child, was taken to the South of France for two years due to her family's income - some US railway bonds they inherited - becoming worthless.
Renting out their Torquay villa paid for hotels in the South of France, with living expenses and some left over.
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Israel had to build some of the world's best defences to counter the constant barrage of rocket attacks launched with murderous intent by their innocent and oppressed neighbours
Not taking sides, but the Palestinians were there first. As far as they’re concerned!
As far as reality is concerned, they were not.
Israel is a western democracy that has sought peace time and again, and would be destroyed if it didn't defend itself.
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Israel had to build some of the world's best defences to counter the constant barrage of rocket attacks launched with murderous intent by their innocent and oppressed neighbours
Not taking sides, but the Palestinians were there first. As far as they’re concerned!
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Israel had to build some of the world's best defences to counter the constant barrage of rocket attacks launched with murderous intent by their innocent and oppressed neighbours
Not taking sides, but the Palestinians were there first. As far as they’re concerned!
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Israel had to build some of the world's best defences to counter the constant barrage of rocket attacks launched with murderous intent by their innocent and oppressed neighbours
Not taking sides, but the Palestinians were there first. As far as they’re concerned!
Israel exists
Islam needs to come to terms with that fact
Palestinians exist. Israel needs to come to terms with that fact.
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Israel had to build some of the world's best defences to counter the constant barrage of rocket attacks launched with murderous intent by their innocent and oppressed neighbours
Not taking sides, but the Palestinians were there first. As far as they’re concerned!
Israel exists
Islam needs to come to terms with that fact
The modern world exists.
Islam needs to come to terms with that fact.
Yeah, these people who say God gave them Israel 3000 years ago are right pains in the hole.
Speaking of names, (and on a lighter note), I just received a campaign post card from Semi Bird, who is running for governor of Washington state.
When I first saw a campaign sign with that name, I had no idea what sort of person might have it. I could have been given 100 guesses -- and not gotten close with any of them.
(If you would like to try to guess, go ahead. I'll be back in an hour or so, with the answer.)
I saw in the Telegraph that Farage was offering to be Starmer's trade envoy to the US. I guess he won't be running for Reform then .... that is how bad it is for the right.
Sky were interviewing Tice today and got so impatient with him they cut him off and moved to another story
Theyre hardly fans as he works for a competitor news channel.
His answer to the boats is to intercept them and take them back to France
Seems Reform want to take us out of the ECHR thereby making us an international pariah like Russia and Belarus, and also to prejudice the WF and GFA and ensure France will refuse permission for them to land in France
You mean an international pariah like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA or Japan?
There's absolutely no reason why we need to be in the ECHR. Human rights are universal not continent based, there's nothing special or magical about being in Europe which makes us any more required to be in the ECHR than any other democracy on the planet which is not in Europe.
I think that's quite seriously mistaken TBH.
It's not about Human Rights being universal, it's also about them being recognised and enforceable. And if the infrastructure that supports those processes is taken away, then we have a new situation where ignoring and not respecting human rights becomes acceptable.
We can already point to some examples of what happens - at one end the US Govt indulging in illegal torture, waterboarding by various mechanisms (eg 'Rights under USA law does not apply where it is technically not the USA, so we can do what we want') etc, and at the other end much of the world where Governments can ignore human rights at will.
Europe, and most advanced societies, are arguably one exception where the infrastructure is at least partially effective, and officially supported.
That's one reason why the Ukrainian War has to be won with a clear defeat for Russia; if that does not happen it is an admission by Western countries that we will permit destruction of human rights in Europe.
The Telegraph podcast had a good conversation on this earlier this week.
The democratic, western world is more than just Europe.
The ECHR does bugger all to prevent human rights abuses, it had Putin's Russia as a full member state until 2021.
There is no fundamental reason why our human rights can't be treated the same as other common law nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Geography is irrelevant.
The fundamental reason why it will not happen is public opinion supports the ECHR and even more so the WF and GFA
That's completely different to us being pariahs if we decide otherwise.
If the public changes its mind, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Having our human rights enforced by domestic courts, like many democracies across the planet, is an entirely reasonable choice.
At least there was some sort of (as it happens fictional) financial benefit to be had from leaving the EU. There were payments that the UK could stop making. Famously enumerated on the side of a bus.
There’s no financial benefit to leaving the ECHR, so why would any organisation that benefits from the brand equity it confers bother to leave it? It’s like a farmer being signed up to the red tractor mark, or organic certification. Or a restaurant being featured in the Michelin guide. Or a tour operator being an ATOL member, or a vineyard being a member of WineGB. Even if the benefit is marginal, the risk of leaving is not worth it. Many of those trade organisations and certification schemes are regional by nature, that’s just the way of things.
Occasionally businesses decide to decide to go it alone, usually because of some spat about an obscure rule like the number of herbicide sprays they’re allowed per year or the content of their packaging, or a perception the regulations favour larger/smaller operators, and 9 times out of 10 no matter how understandable the original gripe, they lose trade.
The financial benefit from leaving the EU is absolutely not fictional - if it were, the EU would not now be struggling to balance their budget.
Trade policy is not Russia-style zero-sum. Brexit is a lose-lose.
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
There's absolutely no evidence that your assertion about trade is true. There is indisputable empirical evidence that my statement about no longer having to pay for membership is true.
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Israel had to build some of the world's best defences to counter the constant barrage of rocket attacks launched with murderous intent by their innocent and oppressed neighbours
Not taking sides, but the Palestinians were there first. As far as they’re concerned!
Israel exists
Islam needs to come to terms with that fact
Palestinians exist. Israel needs to come to terms with that fact.
How many Israelis would have accepted the existing borders at any point in the last eighty years?
Enough of them every time
How many Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims accepted the existing borders at any point in the last eighty years?
Much to the disappointment of Private Eye and other publications Harold Wilson has had the last laugh, they were all insinuating that he had been having an affair with Marcia Williams.
Much to the disappointment of Private Eye and other publications Harold Wilson has had the last laugh, they were all insinuating that he had been having an affair with Marcia Williams.
As a friend of mine who worked for him could (and did) testify to in private.*
That doesn't mean he wasn't shagging others too.
*To be exact, my friend saw Wilson frequently leaving Marcia Williams' place first thing in the morning. But maybe they were just working the lavender notepaper?
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Yes, Hamas and other terrorists like the PLO, Fatah etc have been committing murder and rejecting peace at every turn.
I see. So basically it's the peace lovers with the six-pointed star flag, who've been lying down and taking it so tolerantly for so long, accepting such huge casualties, but winning Eurovision with "Hallelujah", and their opponents the killy killy stabby rapists who fly a stripy flag with a triangle at one end and who commit murder for the sake of it and who have been allowed to get away with their wickedness almost scot free for such a very long time. Glad we cleared that up.
Israel today murdered three sons of Ismail Haniyeh who were visiting relations in a refugee camp for Eid, and the Israeli military said they were on their way to "carry out terrorist activities in the central area of the Gaza Strip". What could that even possibly mean - "terrorist activities"? The enemy of the resistance in the Gaza Strip is the Israeli military. It's not innocent civilians waiting at bus stops.
Says it all about Hamas. Start a war against Israel, bugger off to safety in Qatar and let your family face the consequences of your actions.
All this talk about porcelaine reminds me that some 60-odd years ago I worked in a porcelaine factory in upper Bavaria where the company-supplied lunch break ("Mahlzeit") included free beer. It was as weak as gnats' piss but even so the afternoon shift breakages were stunning. But as they say in those parts, "zerbrochene Geschirr bringt Glück". I came away with a full coffee set which has never been used since, so TSE don't bother with eBay, just pm me if you're interested.
Much to the disappointment of Private Eye and other publications Harold Wilson has had the last laugh, they were all insinuating that he had been having an affair with Marcia Williams.
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Yes, Hamas and other terrorists like the PLO, Fatah etc have been committing murder and rejecting peace at every turn.
I see. So basically it's the peace lovers with the six-pointed star flag, who've been lying down and taking it so tolerantly for so long, accepting such huge casualties, but winning Eurovision with "Hallelujah", and their opponents the killy killy stabby rapists who fly a stripy flag with a triangle at one end and who commit murder for the sake of it and who have been allowed to get away with their wickedness almost scot free for such a very long time. Glad we cleared that up.
Israel today murdered three sons of Ismail Haniyeh who were visiting relations in a refugee camp for Eid, and the Israeli military said they were on their way to "carry out terrorist activities in the central area of the Gaza Strip". What could that even possibly mean - "terrorist activities"? The enemy of the resistance in the Gaza Strip is the Israeli military. It's not innocent civilians waiting at bus stops.
Says it all about Hamas. Start a war against Israel, bugger off to safety in Qatar and let your family face the consequences of your actions.
So killing the sons of their opponent wasn't because the sons were "on their way" to do some "terrorism" then? Careful you don't go off message.
Well, at least they haven't killed as many people as the IDF...
Hamas have killed all of the innocent Palestinians they hid behind since their barbaric raid on Israel
Sunal Jazeera's spreadsheets might not agree
The gallant, moral IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times as many people as evil Hamas.
According to Hamas
I find his propagandising for an Islamist terror group quite unseemly
Your lack of regard for civilian life suggests to me that, contrary to the propaganda that you are a humble postie from Hampshire, you are actually Paula Venells in disguise
Its Hamas that have a disregard for civilian life.
They chose this fight. They can end it whenever the like by surrendering.
No, the IDF have killed TWENTY-TWO times more people than Hamas have on and since 7/10.
And between January 2008 and 6/10/2023, a similar ratio. Hamas killed only 310 Israelis, whilst the IDF killed 6,337 Palestinians. TWENTY times as many.
Do you think if the figures were reversed, Hamas would stop?
Of course not; Hamas want to see Israel (and more widely Jews) eradicated.
But that's slightly missing the point: Israel has (or had...) a great deal of sympathy worldwide given Jewish history over the centuries; particularly the last century. They are rapidly losing that sympathy by acting in the same manner as their enemies. And that matters in the medium- and long-term.
At some point you have to say enough is enough. Tough crying wolf after you have been murdering shedloads of Israelis. Release the hostages that are still alive and state clearly they will never attack Israel or Jews again and it is over. Otherwise suck it up.
"Murdering shedloads of Israelis"? You need to mug up on who's been doing what to whom, and on what scale, in the region for the past 80 years.
Yes, Hamas and other terrorists like the PLO, Fatah etc have been committing murder and rejecting peace at every turn.
I see. So basically it's the peace lovers with the six-pointed star flag, who've been lying down and taking it so tolerantly for so long, accepting such huge casualties, but winning Eurovision with "Hallelujah", and their opponents the killy killy stabby rapists who fly a stripy flag with a triangle at one end and who commit murder for the sake of it and who have been allowed to get away with their wickedness almost scot free for such a very long time. Glad we cleared that up.
Israel today murdered three sons of Ismail Haniyeh who were visiting relations in a refugee camp for Eid, and the Israeli military said they were on their way to "carry out terrorist activities in the central area of the Gaza Strip". What could that even possibly mean - "terrorist activities"? The enemy of the resistance in the Gaza Strip is the Israeli military. It's not innocent civilians waiting at bus stops.
Says it all about Hamas. Start a war against Israel, bugger off to safety in Qatar and let your family face the consequences of your actions.
So killing the sons of their opponent wasn't because the sons were "on their way" to do some "terrorism" then? Careful you don't go off message.
? Why don’t you just stick to incoherent wittering about red heifers.
Comments
The UK suffers frictional trade losses several orders of magnitude greater than it nominally gains in foregone membership payments.
The EU loses membership payments and suffers frictional trade losses.
Just like divorce, expensive for all concerned.
“Constitutions are made for men. Not men for constitutions.”
People should really read “Caesar: A Sketch”, James Anthony Froude
It’s quite a hagiography, but it capture an idea of why the Roman people followed Caesar and the Emperors and not the oligarchs of the Senate.
There's a reason why so many marriages end in divorce. That analogy isn't as powerful as you think.
Ha! Modernists!
What about 1169, eh? Eh?
Firstly, you have no evidence of it. It is the sort of thing a Hamas apologist would say when Hamas say that all the hostages are dead.
Secondly, they were only hostages because Hamas kidnapped them, during an orgy of killing and rape. Blaming the IDF for their deaths in that manner just excuses Hamas' evil.
Thirdly, even *if* it is true, do you think that is because it was an accident of war, the IDF deliberately targeted them; or Hamas killed them and wants idiots to blame the IDF?
But again: the hostages are only there because Hamas kidnapped them. *If* Hamas has released those hostages in the first month after their attack on Israel, then much of the reason for Israel's attacks on Gaza would have been removed. But they did not.
However they died, the hostage's deaths are on Hamas.
If the LDs get 40-50 seats they may well overtake the SNP as third party too at Westminster
Denby Imperial blue is nice quality, dishwasher safe and has a gold edge but not too blingy.
https://www.denbypottery.com/imperialblue
But I want is not I get. Over time things change.
https://www.wedgwood.com/en-gb/gifting/occasions/valentines-gifts/vera-wang-lace-gold-12-piece-set-1065062
https://www.chinasearch.co.uk/wedgwood-columbia---enamelled---w595-dinner-plate-70947/
It was made for ages, so whole sets second hand but not cheap.
Swinney is the only SNP leader since Holyrood was founded in 1999 never to have won a Holyrood election or become FM and it looks like Yousaf may follow suit in 2026 on the former with Sarwar replacing him as FM after the next Holyrood polls
One thing, will I be making the heirs of Tony Wedgewood Benn richer by buying these?
More likely that SKir is/was Broon's protégé
I compare it to dentistry. Everybody wants healthy, clean teeth (good, healthy, committed marriage).
But if you have a badly rotten decaying tooth then sometimes extraction (divorce), however unpleasant, is necessary.
Doesn't make it any more pleasant, but if that point is reached then by then its the right thing to do.
https://www.thomas-porzellan.de/en-gb/collections/trend/white/
Classy in white, also now available in colours
Israel today murdered three sons of Ismail Haniyeh who were visiting relations in a refugee camp for Eid, and the Israeli military said they were on their way to "carry out terrorist activities in the central area of the Gaza Strip". What could that even possibly mean - "terrorist activities"? The enemy of the resistance in the Gaza Strip is the Israeli military. It's not innocent civilians waiting at bus stops.
Israel are the victim here. They accepted peace in 1948 and were attacked by Egypt and Jordan, which is the only reason no Palestinian state exists. Time and again since they've gone for peace.
Hamas did this in part to blow up peace talks Israel were conducting with Saudi Arabia.
Its not Israel that doesn't want peace.
The lot of the Palestinians would improve a lot, when their leadership actually gives a damn about them.
The pale yellow glistening mud that covers the hills like satin;
The grey gleaming silvery mud that is spread like enamel over the valleys;
The frothing, squirting, spurting, liquid mud that gurgles along the road beds;
The thick elastic mud that is kneaded and pounded and squeezed under the hoofs of the horses;
The invincible, inexhaustible mud of the war zone.
Family legend has it that I am related to John Heath, the banker that founded Royal Crown Derby, on my mother's side. Also that he lost all his money in one of the financial bubbles. My dad's side of the family tree were much more successful with money...
(*) Okay, a few miles outside Derby...
Arguable, but probably not.
That way my other senses are enhanced.
Or Spode. (N. B. Nothing to do with the Wodehousian chap in black footer shorts.)
1) First it hit the Rotherham player in the face
2) He was outside the penalty area.
https://twitter.com/San_Pers/status/1778148417467818374/video/1
A few years ago, we went from Center Parcs to a very posh hotel in the South of France, and were staggered to discover we were paying less there.
No VAR?
Renting out their Torquay villa paid for hotels in the South of France, with living expenses and some left over.
Israel is a western democracy that has sought peace time and again, and would be destroyed if it didn't defend itself.
We should support them to defend themselves.
Islam needs to come to terms with that fact
Islam needs to come to terms with that fact.
Apparently I'll have to drink four cups of wine with dinner to fully engage with the tradition
When I first saw a campaign sign with that name, I had no idea what sort of person might have it. I could have been given 100 guesses -- and not gotten close with any of them.
(If you would like to try to guess, go ahead. I'll be back in an hour or so, with the answer.)
Our Brexiteer Government that's so hard up it can't afford tax cuts even quietly bunged the EU £2.3bn via a trumped up CJEU decision on Chinese shoes, presumably to help lighten the load: https://news.sky.com/story/uk-pays-eu-2-3bn-after-losing-trade-dispute-12806928
Enough of them every time
How many Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims accepted the existing borders at any point in the last eighty years?
You probably have sufficient fingers
https://www.wedgwood.com/en-gb/collections/prestige/phoenix/phoenix-15-piece-dinnerware-set-1065308
Or given that it’s a golden wedding how about Denby Arabesque which was the height of fashion when they were married
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13294415/Harold-Wilson-affair-Prime-Minister-Downing-Street-Janet-Hewlett-Davies.html
ROFL.
IT SAYS A MAN WALKED ON WATER
As a friend of mine who worked for him could (and did) testify to in private.*
That doesn't mean he wasn't shagging others too.
*To be exact, my friend saw Wilson frequently leaving Marcia Williams' place first thing in the morning. But maybe they were just working the lavender notepaper?