There are so many people in Manhattan they can find a fair jury even for him, but he may be the hardest person ever to manage that for even above serious violent criminals, due to his assertion that attacking witnesses, judges, and prospective jurors, is political speech, and given he has supporters who do act on this stuff.
It is entirely rational to not want to be on a jury dealing with Trump, for similar reasons one would not, per impossibile, want to be a juror in a case in Russia where Putin was the defendant.
Indeed. But that's why they need to go through hundreds to get 18 who are are willing and able, even if not keen.
Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU.
According to the BBC: Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year.
That's not really ruling it out is it?
They need to understand that time has moved on . It’s not 2016 anymore .
Labour will do a bit of tinkering in terms of our relationship with the EU but that's about it.
All of the Remainers that have been pinning their hopes on Sir Keir reopening Brexit will soon be very disappointed IMO (along with everyone else that for the time being is pinning all their hopes and wishes and disillusionment with the current government on to Labour.
In Opposition SKS has been able to be absolutely anything anyone wants him to be. That is coming to an end very soon...
I don’t expect Rejoin but what I do expect is an effort to give younger people a chance to spend a few years in each other’s countries . Labour seem to think that their voters will keep putting up with this crap .
Realign, renegotiate, rejoin, the 10 year plan.
What do you mean 'realign' - we have never de-aligned.
I'm sure they can think of something. There must be some EU programmes or policies that can be signed up to in exchange for some kind of concession.
"The husband of former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has been charged in connection with the embezzlement of funds from the Scottish National Party."
Crime or not, it is pretty apparent Murrell was at best an incompetent at running the SNP's finances and organisation, despite the party's electoral successes.
Forgive me if this has already been pointed out, but British Politics since 2010 makes a lot more sense if one assumes that *all* of the Conservative MPs have been blackmailed.
I don't quite see where Ed vs David fits in to this idea, nor Corbyn.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
It's eminently plausible, given how paranoid they are about opening any opportunity for the Tories on Brexit, even when there's a big popularity upside. It's the same with pet passports - another clear win if Labour committed to rejoin the scheme: I wrote to their shadow minister who replied quickly completely dodging the question, and has then simply ignored every reminder I have sent him.
Six months back they might have had a chance of my tactical vote, but Labour can go hang for it, they offer so little.
Labour rhetoric on the EU will cause them problems I think when, as we assume, they become the next government. The problem is they don't acknowledge what most people in the UK think and what almost all Labour voters think, which is that Brexit was a big mistake.
It's one thing to say, we are where we are, and we will always take a hard headed approach to negotiations with the EU, if the desired end goal is a closer relationship that mitigates some of the damage.
But they are not prepared even to hint at any concrete improvements, nor can they articulate any advantages to the Brexit situation we're in because no-one thinks there are any. So people lose confidence in them
Judge struggling to find 12 jurors in the Trump case.
Hoping to start actual trial by Monday but lost two jurors this afternoon.
They got 7 on the first day of proper jury selection, lost two of those, but called something like 500 people down for potential selection. Even with 50% self selecting out first up they will manage to get 12 jurors and 6 alternates, even if goes in to next week (which many legal people had been predicting in the first place).
It’s not an easy job to find a dozen and more people in the US who have an impartial view of the guy, especially when they might be lying to try and get selected for the jury in the first place. Not surprised it’s taken all week.
From the commentary from lawyers, it's going much faster than expected.
I think they allowed 2-3 weeks.
And they don't need an impartial view, they need to be able to set their view aside and decide on the evidence presented.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
Thanks. But we're back to the 'no plans'. 'We have no plans' ≠ 'We rule it out'.
It’s as good as ruling it out, isn’t it? “We have no plans to do that” is as good as saying it won’t happen.
Sir Keir has broken almost every pledge he made in order to get the gig as Labour leader. In 2017 he was elected as an MP saying that it was ‘a matter of principle’ that MPs accept the Leave win. He then spent two years trying to force a second referendum where it was ‘an important point of principle’ that he would campaign for Remain.
So why worry about what he says he will or don’t do?
How about the lenders lose up to 100% and the taxpayer doesn't get involved?
Too many foreign, especially Chinese, lenders and shareholders involved with Thames Water.
Whitehall would prefer that British taxpayers get the cost.
I'd suggest that the model for this should be the Kuwait Investment Body and the BP float, where Mrs Thatcher made them follow the letter of the rules.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
Thanks. But we're back to the 'no plans'. 'We have no plans' ≠ 'We rule it out'.
from the bbc
And Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year.
A party spokesperson said it had already pledged "no return to the single market, customs union or free movement" if it takes office.
Seems like they consider it to break the free movement pledge to me.
Will surely depend on the nature of the scheme - which is why aren't going for it now but say no plans. Labour doesn't want to, even rhetorically, tie itself to anything it might not control ahead of time.
Purely as a matter of political and economic gravity it will have to discuss these things with the EU. And if they poll well and are net positives for us, would be mad not to do deals.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
Thanks. But we're back to the 'no plans'. 'We have no plans' ≠ 'We rule it out'.
It’s as good as ruling it out, isn’t it? “We have no plans to do that” is as good as saying it won’t happen.
Sir Keir has broken almost every pledge he made in order to get the gig as Labour leader. In 2017 he was elected as an MP saying that it was ‘a matter of principle’ that MPs accept the Leave win. He then spent two years trying to force a second referendum where it was ‘an important point of principle’ that he would campaign for Remain.
So why worry about what he says he will or don’t do?
Then
There's policy and there's politics and you're savvy enough to know the two aren't the same.
Starmer is continuing to use the Mandelson schtick of reassuring former Conservative voters he'll be a "safe pair of hands" and they'll have nothing to worry about if he becomes Prime Minister. He'll do that right up to the point of the final vote being cast and those who may oppose him in the Party are naturally placated by the prospect of victory which is the greatest way of enforcing party discipline there is.
Who cares what he said in 2016 or 2019 - it's 2024. Blair stood on the suicide note in 1983 but no one was bothered about that by the 1990s. In a political party, the main virtues are loyalty and loyalty. That means you go with what the party decides until you can either stand it no longer and leave or you are in a position to enforce policy change.
Once it becomes your policy, yes, you have to stand or fall on it but parties evolve or if you prefer do whatever they feel they need to do to win. Johnson, for example, seemed to spend most of the 2019 campaign attacking the Government which he led and running almost as an Opposition leader against himself. It was a masterstroke - Starmer has simply to keep pointing to the Conservatives in Government since December 2019. Ordinarily, that wouldn't be enough but when the Government is polling around 20% it'll probably win him a huge landslide.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
Do you regret your vote for Brexit now? I know you hoped for a far more sensible trading outcome, but wish you had voted remain?
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
If it doesn't happen now, it moves to autumn.
And it can't move to autumn, because there's no way the government will want to risk it going pear shaped in the runup to an election.
So it becomes another "no plans to" problem for the next government.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
What's the problem?
If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.
If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.
No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.
Note no alternative Tory leader does any better than Sunak in the same poll apart from Mordaunt who only does fractionally better.
The key for the Conservatives is to get immigration down with the new tighter Visa rules to win back Reform voters and grow the economy more and get inflation down further to win back some voters from Labour
Surely you can hear Whitehall and the City blahing on and on about the importance of maintaining the UK's reputation as a safe place for foreign finance to invest in ?
The people who lost money from Wasps were 'little people' from Coventry and so deemed of no importance by comparison.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
What's the problem?
If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.
If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.
No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.
It's one thing to decide we don't want to make the checks and to not make them. It's quite another to repeatedly say we are going to introduce the checks and then repeatedly postpone doing so, creating uncertainty and expense.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
Do you regret your vote for Brexit now? I know you hoped for a far more sensible trading outcome, but wish you had voted remain?
Have I not said that enough? Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa. For some reason I expected that the British government wasn't an utter fiasco. "Border Target Operating Model" - which we didn't build sufficient physical capacity to implement.
And people still want people to vote Tory. For what? More shithousery?
I'm sure it has been noted but Savanta give Street a 2% lead in the WM
C 40, Lab 38, Ref 7, LD 6, Green 5, Yakoob 5
I suspect a lot of us think this is closer to the real picture than R&W. Savanta tends to be less brutal for the Cons than some others. Not too long until we see who is closer to reality!
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
What's the problem?
If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.
If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.
No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.
It's one thing to decide we don't want to make the checks and to not make them. It's quite another to repeatedly say we are going to introduce the checks and then repeatedly postpone doing so, creating uncertainty and expense.
Indeed, which is why I have said for years we should simply say we are not introducing these checks, but nor should we align with the EU.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
Thanks. But we're back to the 'no plans'. 'We have no plans' ≠ 'We rule it out'.
It’s as good as ruling it out, isn’t it? “We have no plans to do that” is as good as saying it won’t happen.
Sir Keir has broken almost every pledge he made in order to get the gig as Labour leader. In 2017 he was elected as an MP saying that it was ‘a matter of principle’ that MPs accept the Leave win. He then spent two years trying to force a second referendum where it was ‘an important point of principle’ that he would campaign for Remain.
So why worry about what he says he will or don’t do?
Then
There's policy and there's politics and you're savvy enough to know the two aren't the same.
Starmer is continuing to use the Mandelson schtick of reassuring former Conservative voters he'll be a "safe pair of hands" and they'll have nothing to worry about if he becomes Prime Minister. He'll do that right up to the point of the final vote being cast and those who may oppose him in the Party are naturally placated by the prospect of victory which is the greatest way of enforcing party discipline there is.
Who cares what he said in 2016 or 2019 - it's 2024. Blair stood on the suicide note in 1983 but no one was bothered about that by the 1990s. In a political party, the main virtues are loyalty and loyalty. That means you go with what the party decides until you can either stand it no longer and leave or you are in a position to enforce policy change.
Once it becomes your policy, yes, you have to stand or fall on it but parties evolve or if you prefer do whatever they feel they need to do to win. Johnson, for example, seemed to spend most of the 2019 campaign attacking the Government which he led and running almost as an Opposition leader against himself. It was a masterstroke - Starmer has simply to keep pointing to the Conservatives in Government since December 2019. Ordinarily, that wouldn't be enough but when the Government is polling around 20% it'll probably win him a huge landslide.
I’m not saying he won’t be PM, just that it’s not worth worrying about what he says he will or won’t do because he never keeps his word anyway.
Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU.
They’ve what?
Yes that’s what they’ve said . It’s shocking .
Link?
What a silly decision.
Starmer has won and he needs to stop stressing about the likes of Braverman and the ERG
I think it would be an excellent agreement
I’m a fucking Leaver and would still vote Leave and I think this is INSANE from Labour. It’s a generous offer from the EU. What the fuck is Labour doing??
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
What's the problem?
If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.
If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.
No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.
We are hurting ourselves. All imports need reams of paperwork specifically for the checks we're no longer going to implement.
I have no problem scrapping BTOM. But we can't do so by merely not bothering. We need to change the treaty so that importing nations are not treaty bound to impose large costs and delays. Its beyond stupid.
As for "needlessly tie ourselves to our standards" - lets assume we have imposed higher standards. As you suggest. How do we impose those? When we don't check? We would need the checks - otherwise we get whatever they send.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
Do you regret your vote for Brexit now? I know you hoped for a far more sensible trading outcome, but wish you had voted remain?
Have I not said that enough? Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa. For some reason I expected that the British government wasn't an utter fiasco. "Border Target Operating Model" - which we didn't build sufficient physical capacity to implement.
And people still want people to vote Tory. For what? More shithousery?
Fair enough. I suspect the Tory voters left are habitual Tory voters. Change is coming - let’s just hope we get some adults in the room again.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
What's the problem?
If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.
If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.
No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.
We are hurting ourselves. All imports need reams of paperwork specifically for the checks we're no longer going to implement.
I have no problem scrapping BTOM. But we can't do so by merely not bothering. We need to change the treaty so that importing nations are not treaty bound to impose large costs and delays. Its beyond stupid.
As for "needlessly tie ourselves to our standards" - lets assume we have imposed higher standards. As you suggest. How do we impose those? When we don't check? We would need the checks - otherwise we get whatever they send.
We set our standards at however we want to set them, and recognise theirs as equivalent even if not the same.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
What's the problem?
If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.
If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.
No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.
It's one thing to decide we don't want to make the checks and to not make them. It's quite another to repeatedly say we are going to introduce the checks and then repeatedly postpone doing so, creating uncertainty and expense.
Indeed, which is why I have said for years we should simply say we are not introducing these checks, but nor should we align with the EU.
Well, you have many ideas, some of which might be pretty good ideas, but your ideas don't really matter. What matters is the approach of the UK Government.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
What's the problem?
If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.
If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.
No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.
It's one thing to decide we don't want to make the checks and to not make them. It's quite another to repeatedly say we are going to introduce the checks and then repeatedly postpone doing so, creating uncertainty and expense.
Indeed, which is why I have said for years we should simply say we are not introducing these checks, but nor should we align with the EU.
Well, you have many ideas, some of which might be pretty good ideas, but your ideas don't really matter. What matters is the approach of the UK Government.
If the Government were implementing my ideas, I'd be voting for them.
Daughter of former Gov, POTUS-hopeful and full-time God-Botherer Mike Huckabee. Who can be seen VERY frequently flogging something on El Cheapo broadcast TV.
The rotten crab-apple does NOT fall far from the rotten crab-apple tree.
Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU.
They’ve what?
Yes that’s what they’ve said . It’s shocking .
Link?
What a silly decision.
Starmer has won and he needs to stop stressing about the likes of Braverman and the ERG
I think it would be an excellent agreement
I’m a fucking Leaver and would still vote Leave and I think this is INSANE from Labour. It’s a generous offer from the EU. What the fuck is Labour doing??
Everything they can not to scare the voters, I suspect. It’s reminiscent of 1996-97. Blair didn’t believe that they would really get the landslide that was coming. Starmer is nervous now. Don’t scare the horses.
Personally I think he's not doing too bad a job, but I have to admit communication isn't his forté.
Sub Truss?
Chortle.
The day collar discussion is not needed...
A discussion we are only having because I spotted it after watcing her debate for two minutes. Ahem
Was it ever established beyond your fruitier ramblings and because it fitted with her being a bit a shagger in the past that it is a 'day collar'? Doing a Google lense search of it seems to bring up fashion pieces that look exactly the same. I thought there must be something different about the bale that made it 'the bondage version', but can't find any evidence of that. So as fun a rumour as it is, I'm calling bullshit and going to say she's wearing it because it's a nice piece of jewellery her hubbie bought her.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
What's the problem?
If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.
If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.
No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.
We are hurting ourselves. All imports need reams of paperwork specifically for the checks we're no longer going to implement.
I have no problem scrapping BTOM. But we can't do so by merely not bothering. We need to change the treaty so that importing nations are not treaty bound to impose large costs and delays. Its beyond stupid.
As for "needlessly tie ourselves to our standards" - lets assume we have imposed higher standards. As you suggest. How do we impose those? When we don't check? We would need the checks - otherwise we get whatever they send.
We set our standards at however we want to set them, and recognise theirs as equivalent even if not the same.
I know that importing food is my job and not yours, so I'm not as clued up as you, but huh?
So we set standard A++ and the EU standard is A. We recognise theirs as equivalent and wave it through. So what is the point in A++? Do you mean only for UK producers?
So you want to set a higher cost standard for UK products consumed domestically. Our costs go up making imports relatively cheaper. And as our products cost more our ability to export is reduced even further.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
What's the problem?
If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.
If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.
No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.
How can you manage to be so wrong about absolutely everything? Your hard man posturing about them needing us more than we need themselves. FFS. It’s an us problem because they have no impediments to import to us but can impede our exports nevertheless. We have found out we can’t retaliate. We’ve erected a trade barrier against ourselves. You’ve ruined your children’s future because of fucking posturing Ayn Rand individualism which never worked, doesn’t work, and will never work.
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
FFS...
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
What's the problem?
If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.
If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.
No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.
We are hurting ourselves. All imports need reams of paperwork specifically for the checks we're no longer going to implement.
I have no problem scrapping BTOM. But we can't do so by merely not bothering. We need to change the treaty so that importing nations are not treaty bound to impose large costs and delays. Its beyond stupid.
As for "needlessly tie ourselves to our standards" - lets assume we have imposed higher standards. As you suggest. How do we impose those? When we don't check? We would need the checks - otherwise we get whatever they send.
We set our standards at however we want to set them, and recognise theirs as equivalent even if not the same.
But you’ve abandoned any checks on standards. So we effectively have no standards. Like your parents.
How about the lenders lose up to 100% and the taxpayer doesn't get involved?
I think you'll find that this is what 'levelling up' means. I'm sure the people of Yorkshire and Cornwall will be doffing their caps in joy at this news.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
It's eminently plausible, given how paranoid they are about opening any opportunity for the Tories on Brexit, even when there's a big popularity upside. It's the same with pet passports - another clear win if Labour committed to rejoin the scheme: I wrote to their shadow minister who replied quickly completely dodging the question, and has then simply ignored every reminder I have sent him.
Six months back they might have had a chance of my tactical vote, but Labour can go hang for it, they offer so little.
I thought you lived on the IoW? Are thr Lib Dems no longer the main challenger to the Tories?
Personally I think he's not doing too bad a job, but I have to admit communication isn't his forté.
Sub Truss?
Chortle.
The day collar discussion is not needed...
A discussion we are only having because I spotted it after watcing her debate for two minutes. Ahem
Was it ever established beyond your fruitier ramblings and because it fitted with her being a bit a shagger in the past that it is a 'day collar'? Doing a Google lense search of it seems to bring up fashion pieces that look exactly the same. I thought there must be something different about the bale that made it 'the bondage version', but can't find any evidence of that. So as fun a rumour as it is, I'm calling bullshit and going to say she's wearing it because it's a nice piece of jewellery her hubbie bought her.
Comments
Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border
UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K
Scotch expertise strikes again.
It's one thing to say, we are where we are, and we will always take a hard headed approach to negotiations with the EU, if the desired end goal is a closer relationship that mitigates some of the damage.
But they are not prepared even to hint at any concrete improvements, nor can they articulate any advantages to the Brexit situation we're in because no-one thinks there are any. So people lose confidence in them
I think they allowed 2-3 weeks.
And they don't need an impartial view, they need to be able to set their view aside and decide on the evidence presented.
'Aye, I was shut in wi' a bad man, can you shout me £600,000?'
There is actually a semi-plausible technology for spacecraft fusion drive in experimental development.
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2023/09/20/a-fusion-drive-using-centrifugal-mirror-technologies/
Possibly what the writers of For All Mankind were thinking about.
Whitehall would prefer that British taxpayers get the cost.
So why worry about what he says he will or don’t do?
Then
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.rugbypass.com/news/wasps-re-emergence-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers/
Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.
And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.
This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.
Purely as a matter of political and economic gravity it will have to discuss these things with the EU. And if they poll well and are net positives for us, would be mad not to do deals.
Starmer is continuing to use the Mandelson schtick of reassuring former Conservative voters he'll be a "safe pair of hands" and they'll have nothing to worry about if he becomes Prime Minister. He'll do that right up to the point of the final vote being cast and those who may oppose him in the Party are naturally placated by the prospect of victory which is the greatest way of enforcing party discipline there is.
Who cares what he said in 2016 or 2019 - it's 2024. Blair stood on the suicide note in 1983 but no one was bothered about that by the 1990s. In a political party, the main virtues are loyalty and loyalty. That means you go with what the party decides until you can either stand it no longer and leave or you are in a position to enforce policy change.
Once it becomes your policy, yes, you have to stand or fall on it but parties evolve or if you prefer do whatever they feel they need to do to win. Johnson, for example, seemed to spend most of the 2019 campaign attacking the Government which he led and running almost as an Opposition leader against himself. It was a masterstroke - Starmer has simply to keep pointing to the Conservatives in Government since December 2019. Ordinarily, that wouldn't be enough but when the Government is polling around 20% it'll probably win him a huge landslide.
And it can't move to autumn, because there's no way the government will want to risk it going pear shaped in the runup to an election.
So it becomes another "no plans to" problem for the next government.
If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.
If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.
No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.
The key for the Conservatives is to get immigration down with the new tighter Visa rules to win back Reform voters and grow the economy more and get inflation down further to win back some voters from Labour
The people who lost money from Wasps were 'little people' from Coventry and so deemed of no importance by comparison.
And people still want people to vote Tory. For what? More shithousery?
C 40, Lab 38, Ref 7, LD 6, Green 5, Yakoob 5
I suspect a lot of us think this is closer to the real picture than R&W. Savanta tends to be less brutal for the Cons than some others. Not too long until we see who is closer to reality!
Leverkusen 0
18 mins
I have no problem scrapping BTOM. But we can't do so by merely not bothering. We need to change the treaty so that importing nations are not treaty bound to impose large costs and delays. Its beyond stupid.
As for "needlessly tie ourselves to our standards" - lets assume we have imposed higher standards. As you suggest. How do we impose those? When we don't check? We would need the checks - otherwise we get whatever they send.
(apols)
Pah. They don't have much money to embezzle. Proper politicians embezzle money from the taxpayer. To buy yachts and mansions.
I intend to vote against this Government.
Audit of $19,000 lectern purchase for Arkansas governor released
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4yk0ILc9CM
Daughter of former Gov, POTUS-hopeful and full-time God-Botherer Mike Huckabee. Who can be seen VERY frequently flogging something on El Cheapo broadcast TV.
The rotten crab-apple does NOT fall far from the rotten crab-apple tree.
So we set standard A++ and the EU standard is A. We recognise theirs as equivalent and wave it through. So what is the point in A++? Do you mean only for UK producers?
So you want to set a higher cost standard for UK products consumed domestically. Our costs go up making imports relatively cheaper. And as our products cost more our ability to export is reduced even further.
Sounds great!
NEW THREAD
against ourselves. You’ve ruined your children’s future because of fucking posturing Ayn Rand individualism which never worked, doesn’t work, and will never work.
Failed to find discussion for commenting.
DiscussionID is required.