The Conservatives must work with Reform UK to avoid a wipeout at the local elections, two former Cabinet ministers have urged.
Sir Brandon Lewis and Esther McVey warned that Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage’s parties would not be able to defeat Labour unless they agreed to co-operate.
It comes as Reform surpassed 200,000 members on Sunday afternoon, meaning it has more than doubled its membership in less than three months.
May’s local elections are expected to prove difficult for the Conservatives because they were last held four years ago at the height of Boris Johnson’s post-pandemic popularity.
Thankfully I went to a University that had no immediate rivals like Oxford/Cambridge, Kings/UCL etc. Perhaps that is why Cardiff are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Sounds like anybody with the experience won't work in Aberdeen unless they are paid big bucks.
There are plenty of people in Aberdeen with great experience...
...in oil and gas, which is what we should be doing there.
Interesting that all the massive AI compute centres in the US are being powered mostly by gas (and nuclear) due massive always on power requirements. The UK have hitched it wagon to a eco supplier who also claim they will run AMD chips rather than Nvidia....
Musk is now calling for the end of Radio Free Europe (“decide yourself if Radio’s gonna stay”) and Voice of America.
If our government and the Beeb had any sense of strategic opportunity then surely this would be it. What Musk is threatening is to leave the market for Anglophone soft power radio - which remains a market of hundreds of millions, potentially billions of listeners - completely open to monopoly by the BBC world service.
The BBC won't strip domestic services to fund foreign ones and the Government has more urgent calls upon it's funds (mainly pensions, pensions, pensions, pensions and a little bit to stop the NHS from collapsing in a heap of rubble.)
-If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.
-If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.
Sounds like anybody with the experience won't work in Aberdeen unless they are paid big bucks.
There are plenty of people in Aberdeen with great experience...
...in oil and gas, which is what we should be doing there.
Interesting that all the massive AI compute centres in the US are being powered mostly by gas (and nuclear) due massive always on power requirements. The UK have hitched it wagon to a eco supplier who also claim they will run AMD chips rather than Nvidia....
It is obvious to everyone but Ed Milliband that the UK will need waaaaaay more cheap and reliable power than the current arrangements afford. That includes SMRs, oil and gas, and possibly clean coal mined in the UK, though this one I'm just open to, not certain of. It would be great if it also included tidal, but sadly Marquee Mark wouldn't be seen dead talking to Nigel Farage, so it will have to wait until someone more to his taste gets into power, in around 2075.
Musk is now calling for the end of Radio Free Europe (“decide yourself if Radio’s gonna stay”) and Voice of America.
If our government and the Beeb had any sense of strategic opportunity then surely this would be it. What Musk is threatening is to leave the market for Anglophone soft power radio - which remains a market of hundreds of millions, potentially billions of listeners - completely open to monopoly by the BBC world service.
Inbox: A proclamation from the White House recognizing “February 9, 2025, as the first ever Gulf of America Day.”
Trump says he calls “upon public officials and all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.”
Trump suggested DOGE has found irregularities in US treasuries & intimated that may lead the US to disregard some.
“Maybe we have less debt than we thought,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on the way to the Super Bowl.
Are Trump & Musk gonna stiff international lenders? Wouldn't be out of character as neither seem predisposed to ethical business practises. Lenders beware!
-If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.
Trump suggested DOGE has found irregularities in US treasuries & intimated that may lead the US to disregard some.
“Maybe we have less debt than we thought,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on the way to the Super Bowl.
Are Trump & Musk gonna stiff international lenders? Wouldn't be out of character as neither seem predisposed to ethical business practises. Lenders beware!
I don't know how they are going to apportion the blame for this when it all goes belly up (which is also happening waaayyyy faster than expected)
-If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.
Trump is about to test this theory, to destruction I suspect.
It’s unhelpful, I modestly propose, for JD Vance to suggest that judicial restraint on executive power is “illegal”.
He does have a law degree, so you can't realistically expect him to understand the law, but several people have pointed him towards a short pamphlet entitled "The Constitution" that might help him figure it out...
Musk is now calling for the end of Radio Free Europe (“decide yourself if Radio’s gonna stay”) and Voice of America.
If our government and the Beeb had any sense of strategic opportunity then surely this would be it. What Musk is threatening is to leave the market for Anglophone soft power radio - which remains a market of hundreds of millions, potentially billions of listeners - completely open to monopoly by the BBC world service.
The BBC won't strip domestic services to fund foreign ones and the Government has more urgent calls upon it's funds (mainly pensions, pensions, pensions, pensions and a little bit to stop the NHS from collapsing in a heap of rubble.)
Exactly. The govt and beeb don’t have any sense of strategic opportunity. We’re talking pennies, in exchange for massive support for one of our largest export industries: media.
Musk is now calling for the end of Radio Free Europe (“decide yourself if Radio’s gonna stay”) and Voice of America.
If our government and the Beeb had any sense of strategic opportunity then surely this would be it. What Musk is threatening is to leave the market for Anglophone soft power radio - which remains a market of hundreds of millions, potentially billions of listeners - completely open to monopoly by the BBC world service.
The BBC won't strip domestic services to fund foreign ones and the Government has more urgent calls upon it's funds (mainly pensions, pensions, pensions, pensions and a little bit to stop the NHS from collapsing in a heap of rubble.)
Exactly. The govt and beeb don’t have any sense of strategic opportunity. We’re talking pennies, in exchange for massive support for one of our largest export industries: media.
Obvs Tim, you and I and a few others need to simply seize control of the British state to save it from itself.
-If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.
Trump is about to test this theory, to destruction I suspect.
It’s unhelpful, I modestly propose, for JD Vance to suggest that judicial restraint on executive power is “illegal”.
He does have a law degree, so you can't realistically expect him to understand the law, but several people have pointed him towards a short pamphlet entitled "The Constitution" that might help him figure it out...
This type of objection didn't stop FDR playing fast and loose with it to get the New Deal through.
The Chagos Deal. Actually, more I read into this Chagos stuff, more I’ve had “Edward Hyde” (from Cromwell film) switcheroo to other side.
epiphany from me is realising Mauritius leaders, dear Commonwealth Comrades, have “gamed” the UN system - not only for control over economically valuable territory they want to exploit themselves, fishing, oil and minerals, but their sponsors at UN, helping their argument get this far, are a gang of belligerent’s against UK like Putin’s Russia, doing so to make mischief and trouble for us. 😠
deal Foreign Office, Lammy and Starmer has created - to avoid a binding ruling against us at the UN - now appears to me to be bloody awful. It’s created a legal precedent that will be used by other states - no doubt backed in gaming the system by the same gang of UK enemies to try to make predatory claims on British territory elsewhere, where it’s impossible to argue now this precedent applies to Chagos, not to Cyprus or the Falklands. Even worse! the agreed deal grants duplicitous Mauritius leaders power to give fishing rights to Chinese spy vessels! Has Starmer and Lammy actually attended any top secret intelligence briefings themselves?
Consider me switched sides! Now how do we kill this deal? And how do we manage a UN “binding ruling”?
PS first link is pure Yes Minister. in order to sweeten first deal in 1960s, Labour bunged them £3M; although US rather silent partner, I’m sure UK got unofficial sweets back from US for our work. All later legal problems and rulings date back to Labour in the 1960s not getting local agreement to separate and depopulate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty_dispute
PPPS this link makes me think of Yes Minister again. Wasn’t premise “training for new ministers so Civil Service don’t run rings round them”? We’ve had a lot of churn on Ministers, Foreign Secs and PMs in recent years, recurring theme IMHO at first politicians buy in to the Foreign Office plan, as time passes, back away from it. “ministers intent on a tilt to the Indo-Pacific, it was felt British resistance to a handover was hampering UK’s ability to build alliances in the region” (India?) Don’t Cleverley’s words in this piece sound pure Sir Humphrey? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/03/uk-agrees-to-negotiate-with-mauritius-over-handover-of-chagos-islands
It's always interesting when someone changes their mind.
Now we are all on the same page, what are the next steps? We have some great Legal and Parliamentarian people in this site - but I’m definitely not one of either (nor good at maths - I thought rule of 72 was something to do with Sir Edward Heath).
All I got is questions.
On the legal side of things, how do we manage a UN “binding ruling” go against us? Can it go to the Security Council, and we lose and face sanctions and other repercussions?
From the report from when Cleverly opened negotiations 2022, claiming he’d conclude them swiftly: “The UK ignored the ruling on the grounds that it was advisory, but this position became increasingly untenable in the context of British attempts to uphold the importance of international law.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/03/uk-agrees-to-negotiate-with-mauritius-over-handover-of-chagos-islands From the same report “it was felt the British resistance to a handover was hampering the UK’s ability to build alliances in the region.” Had it really become untenable for us? To show some respect to Cleverly and his government, they needed some solid reasoning for such a big u-turn?
On the political side of things, surely a treaty of this magnitude needs to be scrutinised and pass through parliament - like Priti Patel’s equally controversial Rwanda Treaty was - and can’t by pass parliament and rack up so many years of commitment and spending merely labelled as MOU, or Executive Order - that would surely be an undemocratic precedent?
Musk is now calling for the end of Radio Free Europe (“decide yourself if Radio’s gonna stay”) and Voice of America.
If our government and the Beeb had any sense of strategic opportunity then surely this would be it. What Musk is threatening is to leave the market for Anglophone soft power radio - which remains a market of hundreds of millions, potentially billions of listeners - completely open to monopoly by the BBC world service.
The BBC won't strip domestic services to fund foreign ones and the Government has more urgent calls upon it's funds (mainly pensions, pensions, pensions, pensions and a little bit to stop the NHS from collapsing in a heap of rubble.)
Exactly. The govt and beeb don’t have any sense of strategic opportunity. We’re talking pennies, in exchange for massive support for one of our largest export industries: media.
Are things like Radio Free Europe and Voice of America still relevant in the age of the internet?
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
We are not paying Mauritius to take them off our hands. We are proposing to pay Mauritius so that we can de facto retain control of them after de jure handing them over. We are proposing to rent them back, basically.
Very very few places play Rugby (or Cricket for that matter, albeit some big places), we cannot afford to relegate anyone established.
The real problem isn't that, it's what happens if England or France have a bad year and get sent down. It is unlikely in any given year, but always a risk: the French last collected the wooden spoon as recently as 2013. The broadcasters aren't going to pay the necessary amount of money to help keep the tournament solvent if they think there might be a year that 30-40% of the usual audience won't bother to watch.
Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped.
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
Why is it pork barrel ? Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
Our man Barty is on a carnivore diet. He don't like the veggies.
This is populism in a nutshell:
"Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped" shouts the man on the stool in the saloon bar knowing nothing about the background or context.
Musk is now calling for the end of Radio Free Europe (“decide yourself if Radio’s gonna stay”) and Voice of America.
If our government and the Beeb had any sense of strategic opportunity then surely this would be it. What Musk is threatening is to leave the market for Anglophone soft power radio - which remains a market of hundreds of millions, potentially billions of listeners - completely open to monopoly by the BBC world service.
The BBC won't strip domestic services to fund foreign ones and the Government has more urgent calls upon it's funds (mainly pensions, pensions, pensions, pensions and a little bit to stop the NHS from collapsing in a heap of rubble.)
Exactly. The govt and beeb don’t have any sense of strategic opportunity. We’re talking pennies, in exchange for massive support for one of our largest export industries: media.
Are things like Radio Free Europe and Voice of America still relevant in the age of the internet?
Musk is now calling for the end of Radio Free Europe (“decide yourself if Radio’s gonna stay”) and Voice of America.
If our government and the Beeb had any sense of strategic opportunity then surely this would be it. What Musk is threatening is to leave the market for Anglophone soft power radio - which remains a market of hundreds of millions, potentially billions of listeners - completely open to monopoly by the BBC world service.
a. What in particular should the BBC World Service do differently?
b. This may be a strategic opportunity for the UK, but how does the BBC pay for any additional World Service activity?
Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped.
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
Why is it pork barrel ? Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
Our man Barty is on a carnivore diet. He don't like the veggies.
This is populism in a nutshell:
"Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped" shouts the man on the stool in the saloon bar knowing nothing about the background or context.
Its also democracy in a nutshell.
Good riddance to any expenditure that is unnecessary. The US does have a fiscal deficit, you know?
-If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.
Trump is about to test this theory, to destruction I suspect.
I wouldn't have thought that the administration would need to worry much about the judicial branch anymore. Can't they just ignore it and allow all the injunctions to be struck down when they reach the Supreme Court? They control a supine majority there just the same as in Congress, of course.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
We are not paying Mauritius to take them off our hands. We are proposing to pay Mauritius so that we can de facto retain control of them after de jure handing them over. We are proposing to rent them back, basically.
Why do we want to rent them back? Let the Americans pay for the base, they seem to be the ones using it
Musk is now calling for the end of Radio Free Europe (“decide yourself if Radio’s gonna stay”) and Voice of America.
If our government and the Beeb had any sense of strategic opportunity then surely this would be it. What Musk is threatening is to leave the market for Anglophone soft power radio - which remains a market of hundreds of millions, potentially billions of listeners - completely open to monopoly by the BBC world service.
The BBC won't strip domestic services to fund foreign ones and the Government has more urgent calls upon it's funds (mainly pensions, pensions, pensions, pensions and a little bit to stop the NHS from collapsing in a heap of rubble.)
Exactly. The govt and beeb don’t have any sense of strategic opportunity. We’re talking pennies, in exchange for massive support for one of our largest export industries: media.
It's a very good opportunity so naturally we will miss it. We will also miss the opportunity to fund the scientific research the US is apparently on the cusp of abandoning.
I wouldn't have thought that the administration would need to worry much about the judicial branch anymore. Can't they just ignore it and allow all the injunctions to be struck down when they reach the Supreme Court?
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
Musk is now calling for the end of Radio Free Europe (“decide yourself if Radio’s gonna stay”) and Voice of America.
If our government and the Beeb had any sense of strategic opportunity then surely this would be it. What Musk is threatening is to leave the market for Anglophone soft power radio - which remains a market of hundreds of millions, potentially billions of listeners - completely open to monopoly by the BBC world service.
The BBC won't strip domestic services to fund foreign ones and the Government has more urgent calls upon it's funds (mainly pensions, pensions, pensions, pensions and a little bit to stop the NHS from collapsing in a heap of rubble.)
Exactly. The govt and beeb don’t have any sense of strategic opportunity. We’re talking pennies, in exchange for massive support for one of our largest export industries: media.
Are things like Radio Free Europe and Voice of America still relevant in the age of the internet?
Ask the people who subsidise GB News, X, etc.
GB News is relevant because it serves a domestic audience, fills a gap in the market and provides media opportunities for people who wouldn't get on the BBC or Sky as easily.
I don't think RFE or VoA are comparable. They made sense when we had the Iron Curtain with limited media but even in Russia people have access to endless podcasts, Telegram channels, etc.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
We are not paying Mauritius to take them off our hands. We are proposing to pay Mauritius so that we can de facto retain control of them after de jure handing them over. We are proposing to rent them back, basically.
Why do we want to rent them back? Let the Americans pay for the base, they seem to be the ones using it
When the matter first arose, we wanted to be nice to the Americans. These days, maybe we should no longer be thinking of the US as a steadfast military ally…
Define the Nth prime without calling it the Nth prime
If that's your one to to relationship then it's an undefinable one, so prime numbers can only be recorded, not counted
Calling it the Nth prime is defining it as the Nth prime.
The first prime is 2, the 10th prime is 29, the 137th prime is 773 etc
They go on infinitely and can be counted that way, in an infinite manner, there is no end to that. If you want to count the (mashes keypad) 979845647986134894135189135136th prime and have the power to work it out, you can.
Musk is now calling for the end of Radio Free Europe (“decide yourself if Radio’s gonna stay”) and Voice of America.
If our government and the Beeb had any sense of strategic opportunity then surely this would be it. What Musk is threatening is to leave the market for Anglophone soft power radio - which remains a market of hundreds of millions, potentially billions of listeners - completely open to monopoly by the BBC world service.
The BBC won't strip domestic services to fund foreign ones and the Government has more urgent calls upon it's funds (mainly pensions, pensions, pensions, pensions and a little bit to stop the NHS from collapsing in a heap of rubble.)
Exactly. The govt and beeb don’t have any sense of strategic opportunity. We’re talking pennies, in exchange for massive support for one of our largest export industries: media.
Are things like Radio Free Europe and Voice of America still relevant in the age of the internet?
RFE obviously also has a website as well as being on the radio frequencies. They did some good coverage of the Syrian civil war.
If the US doesn’t want to pay for Radio Free Europe, then, sure, they can decide to stop it. However, I believe it was created by Congress and Congress should be the ones to stop it, not Musk wielding some illegal executive fiat.
Reform UK has just passed 200,000 members. Remarkable given that mass party memberships were supposed to be a thing of the past.
As others have noted at 200k mass membership still would be a thing of the past, but it is an impressive number if they can harnass (and get money from) most of that, even if we know for a fact that large memberships do not automatically help a party succeed.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
International law has worked fairly well over the last three quarters of a century to minimise the scale of warfare seen in the first half of the twentieth century or most of the nineteenth century. It has also supported a huge increase in global trade that has greatly added to prosperity for all.
It is perhaps a work in progress and often contentious, but I don’t think it’s a joke.
What's the one to one relationship between integers and primes that doesn't describe them just as the Nth one?
There's no way of defining this, except by finding the next prime number
That's not a countable set, but it is infinite and smaller than the integers
Square numbers, on the other other hand, obviously have a very clear one to one definition to integers (less so if you include negative numbers)
So they're countable in a very real sense, even if there are obviously fewer square number integers than there are integers
I think you are looking for a formula between say the primes and the integers. e.g. the nth prime is f(n). There isn't one. You just line them up.
So recordable, not countable
Obviously you can count things that you've made a record of, but you can't count in them
The next one is utterly unpredictable
Even though N to the power of N is a smaller set of numbers than the primes, it's a definable one to one relationship, so equals the infinity of integers in a way that primes can't
What's the one to one relationship between integers and primes that doesn't describe them just as the Nth one?
There's no way of defining this, except by finding the next prime number
That's not a countable set, but it is infinite and smaller than the integers
Square numbers, on the other other hand, obviously have a very clear one to one definition to integers (less so if you include negative numbers)
So they're countable in a very real sense, even if there are obviously fewer square number integers than there are integers
I think you are looking for a formula between say the primes and the integers. e.g. the nth prime is f(n). There isn't one. You just line them up.
So recordable, not countable
I don’t know what you mean by “countable”, but it means something specific to a mathematician, and to a mathematician the order of infinity of the primes is the same as for the integers (or rational numbers).
Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped.
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
Why is it pork barrel ? Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
Our man Barty is on a carnivore diet. He don't like the veggies.
This is populism in a nutshell:
"Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped" shouts the man on the stool in the saloon bar knowing nothing about the background or context.
.
He’s at least one step up from the MAGAts losing their shit over the research into transgender mice…
Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped.
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
Why is it pork barrel ? Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
Our man Barty is on a carnivore diet. He don't like the veggies.
The majority of soybean demand is as a feedstock for the livestock industries. It’s the US’s most valuable crop.
Not conducting research into it would be phenomenally stupid.
(Though the most valuable ag research ever conducted was paid for by Mexico, which employed Norman Borlaug.)
I'm eighteen years old and have spent my entire teenage years in a cupboard playing computer games and doing maths puzzles but I know how to run and entire country.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
What's the one to one relationship between integers and primes that doesn't describe them just as the Nth one?
There's no way of defining this, except by finding the next prime number
That's not a countable set, but it is infinite and smaller than the integers
Square numbers, on the other other hand, obviously have a very clear one to one definition to integers (less so if you include negative numbers)
So they're countable in a very real sense, even if there are obviously fewer square number integers than there are integers
I think you are looking for a formula between say the primes and the integers. e.g. the nth prime is f(n). There isn't one. You just line them up.
So recordable, not countable
Obviously you can count things that you've made a record of, but you can't count in them
The next one is utterly unpredictable
Even though N to the power of N is a smaller set of numbers than the primes, it's a definable one to one relationship, so equals the infinity of integers in a way that primes can't
Things don't have to be predictable to be countable.
Stand at your bus stop and count how many buses arrive. If they're running late it might not be predictable how many do, but you can most definitely count it.
Define the Nth prime without calling it the Nth prime
If that's your one to to relationship then it's an undefinable one, so prime numbers can only be recorded, not counted
Calling it the Nth prime is defining it as the Nth prime.
The first prime is 2, the 10th prime is 29, the 137th prime is 773 etc
They go on infinitely and can be counted that way, in an infinite manner, there is no end to that. If you want to count the (mashes keypad) 979845647986134894135189135136th prime and have the power to work it out, you can.
There isn't a way to work it out, except by.finding the next number with no factors
What's the one to one relationship between integers and primes that doesn't describe them just as the Nth one?
There's no way of defining this, except by finding the next prime number
That's not a countable set, but it is infinite and smaller than the integers
Square numbers, on the other other hand, obviously have a very clear one to one definition to integers (less so if you include negative numbers)
So they're countable in a very real sense, even if there are obviously fewer square number integers than there are integers
I think you are looking for a formula between say the primes and the integers. e.g. the nth prime is f(n). There isn't one. You just line them up.
So recordable, not countable
Obviously you can count things that you've made a record of, but you can't count in them
The next one is utterly unpredictable
Even though N to the power of N is a smaller set of numbers than the primes, it's a definable one to one relationship, so equals the infinity of integers in a way that primes can't
What is the point of this, Blanche? Do you really think we’re all making this up? Go read a maths textbook on the subject if you want to understand it.
Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped.
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
Why is it pork barrel ? Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
Our man Barty is on a carnivore diet. He don't like the veggies.
The majority of soybean demand is as a feedstock for the livestock industries. It’s the US’s most valuable crop.
Not conducting research into it would be phenomenally stupid.
(Though the most valuable ag research ever conducted was paid for by Mexico, which employed Norman Borlaug.)
I'm eighteen years old and have spent my entire teenage years in a cupboard playing computer games and doing maths puzzles but I know how to run and entire country.
I've seen some of these grand strategy titles which go right over my head, depending on the game they might in fact do ok.
Define the Nth prime without calling it the Nth prime
If that's your one to to relationship then it's an undefinable one, so prime numbers can only be recorded, not counted
Calling it the Nth prime is defining it as the Nth prime.
The first prime is 2, the 10th prime is 29, the 137th prime is 773 etc
They go on infinitely and can be counted that way, in an infinite manner, there is no end to that. If you want to count the (mashes keypad) 979845647986134894135189135136th prime and have the power to work it out, you can.
There isn't a way to work it out, except by.finding the next number with no factors
There's no next prime number formula
But there is a next prime number definition and your statement is totally moot to whether they are countable or not.
Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped.
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
Why is it pork barrel ? Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
Our man Barty is on a carnivore diet. He don't like the veggies.
The majority of soybean demand is as a feedstock for the livestock industries. It’s the US’s most valuable crop.
Not conducting research into it would be phenomenally stupid.
(Though the most valuable ag research ever conducted was paid for by Mexico, which employed Norman Borlaug.)
I'm eighteen years old and have spent my entire teenage years in a cupboard playing computer games and doing maths puzzles but I know how to run and entire country.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
We are not paying Mauritius to take them off our hands. We are proposing to pay Mauritius so that we can de facto retain control of them after de jure handing them over. We are proposing to rent them back, basically.
Why do we want to rent them back? Let the Americans pay for the base, they seem to be the ones using it
I assume we gain some theoretical benefit to being the formal leaseholder, but that seems pretty weak a connection, versus the current situation where the USA are the main users and we really do possess it to give to them. Is there a benefit to being just the middleman? Presumably it is some legal thing where since we currently own it only we can then get it leased back or something strange.
Define the Nth prime without calling it the Nth prime
If that's your one to to relationship then it's an undefinable one, so prime numbers can only be recorded, not counted
Calling it the Nth prime is defining it as the Nth prime.
The first prime is 2, the 10th prime is 29, the 137th prime is 773 etc
They go on infinitely and can be counted that way, in an infinite manner, there is no end to that. If you want to count the (mashes keypad) 979845647986134894135189135136th prime and have the power to work it out, you can.
There isn't a way to work it out, except by.finding the next number with no factors
There's no next prime number formula
But finding the next number with no factors *is* a way to work it out. It’s a very slow way, but it always works.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
What's the consequence?
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped.
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
Why is it pork barrel ? Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
Our man Barty is on a carnivore diet. He don't like the veggies.
The majority of soybean demand is as a feedstock for the livestock industries. It’s the US’s most valuable crop.
Not conducting research into it would be phenomenally stupid.
(Though the most valuable ag research ever conducted was paid for by Mexico, which employed Norman Borlaug.)
I'm eighteen years old and have spent my entire teenage years in a cupboard playing computer games and doing maths puzzles but I know how to run and entire country.
Was the computer game Civilisation?
Valuble lessons to be learned from that series. Such as that it doesn't matter if you are up against Gandhi, he might still nuke you, so be careful.
Define the Nth prime without calling it the Nth prime
If that's your one to to relationship then it's an undefinable one, so prime numbers can only be recorded, not counted
Calling it the Nth prime is defining it as the Nth prime.
The first prime is 2, the 10th prime is 29, the 137th prime is 773 etc
They go on infinitely and can be counted that way, in an infinite manner, there is no end to that. If you want to count the (mashes keypad) 979845647986134894135189135136th prime and have the power to work it out, you can.
There isn't a way to work it out, except by.finding the next number with no factors
There's no next prime number formula
But finding the next number with no factors *is* a way to work it out. It’s a very slow way, but it always works.
My turn to nitpick: Next number with only two factors.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
What's the consequence?
That was my exact question, albeit expressed in 100 words.
Comments
Thankfully I went to a University that had no immediate rivals like Oxford/Cambridge, Kings/UCL etc. Perhaps that is why Cardiff
are on the verge of bankruptcy.
...in oil and gas, which is what we should be doing there.
Gonna be thousands of examples of this kind of thing as Musk and five teenagers are allowed to burn down the federal government.
James Surowiecki
@JamesSurowiecki
Brilliant decision by Musk to quash this obviously wasteful program. Red state colleges and farmers thank him.
https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1888439017500230141
Trump suggested DOGE has found irregularities in US treasuries & intimated that may lead the US to disregard some.
“Maybe we have less debt than we thought,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on the way to the Super Bowl.
Primes are less countable
Integers are fractions over one
The total count of fractions is infinitely bigger than that of integers
There are countless irrational numbers between every rational number
Your two infinities doesn't work
Liz Cheney
@Liz_Cheney
.@JDVance
-If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.
https://x.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1888671822888993170
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3M0L6S3tXA
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1888652406566637891
13% in favour.
Inbox: A proclamation from the White House recognizing “February 9, 2025, as the first ever Gulf of America Day.”
Trump says he calls “upon public officials and all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.”
https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1888589398620389708
Project William of Orange.
All I got is questions.
On the legal side of things, how do we manage a UN “binding ruling” go against us? Can it go to the Security Council, and we lose and face sanctions and other repercussions?
From the report from when Cleverly opened negotiations 2022, claiming he’d conclude them swiftly:
“The UK ignored the ruling on the grounds that it was advisory, but this position became increasingly untenable in the context of British attempts to uphold the importance of international law.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/03/uk-agrees-to-negotiate-with-mauritius-over-handover-of-chagos-islands
From the same report “it was felt the British resistance to a handover was hampering the UK’s ability to build alliances in the region.”
Had it really become untenable for us? To show some respect to Cleverly and his government, they needed some solid reasoning for such a big u-turn?
Is it perhaps India flexing muscles and influence thats dragged it to needing a deal to “unblock alliances in the region”? Other reports I read mentioned India’s happiness we done a deal - India would bring a very different colonial perspective to the table
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/10/uk-must-focus-how-chagos-decision-implemented-gain-its-benefits-and-minimize-risks
On the political side of things, surely a treaty of this magnitude needs to be scrutinised and pass through parliament - like Priti Patel’s equally controversial Rwanda Treaty was - and can’t by pass parliament and rack up so many years of commitment and spending merely labelled as MOU, or Executive Order - that would surely be an undemocratic precedent?
There's no way of defining this, except by finding the next prime number
That's not a countable set, but it is infinite and smaller than the integers
Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
So they're countable in a very real sense, even if there are obviously fewer square number integers than there are integers
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/video-bengaluru-cop-pulls-plug-on-ed-sheeran-s-mic-stops-his-sidewalk-performance/vi-AA1yGsPW#details
Sounds like pork barrel shite designed to impress soy farmers and other voters like that.
"Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped" shouts the man on the stool in the saloon bar knowing nothing about the background or context.
b. This may be a strategic opportunity for the UK, but how does the BBC pay for any additional World Service activity?
Good riddance to any expenditure that is unnecessary. The US does have a fiscal deficit, you know?
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, forever
He believed that infinity was God, or something equally idiotic
Classing pairs of integers as the same as integers is a bit ... hmmm.
I don't think RFE or VoA are comparable. They made sense when we had the Iron Curtain with limited media but even in Russia people have access to endless podcasts, Telegram channels, etc.
There isn't one. You just line them up.
We should say piss off and move on.
If that's your one to to relationship then it's an undefinable one, so prime numbers can only be recorded, not counted
The first prime is 2, the 10th prime is 29, the 137th prime is 773 etc
They go on infinitely and can be counted that way, in an infinite manner, there is no end to that. If you want to count the (mashes keypad) 979845647986134894135189135136th prime and have the power to work it out, you can.
Start counting 1 at 2, 2 at 3, 3 at 5 and keep counting at each new prime number.
If the US doesn’t want to pay for Radio Free Europe, then, sure, they can decide to stop it. However, I believe it was created by Congress and Congress should be the ones to stop it, not Musk wielding some illegal executive fiat.
“What do you think of our presidents plan to have Palestine with no Palestinians in it?”
“I’m not telling you it’s a bad idea.”
It’s the US’s most valuable crop.
Not conducting research into it would be phenomenally stupid.
(Though the most valuable ag research ever conducted was paid for by Mexico, which employed Norman Borlaug.)
It is perhaps a work in progress and often contentious, but I don’t think it’s a joke.
The next one is utterly unpredictable
Even though N to the power of N is a smaller set of numbers than the primes, it's a definable one to one relationship, so equals the infinity of integers in a way that primes can't
https://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/rational-numbers-countable.php
EDIT Just beaten to it by bondegezou.
He’s at least one step up from the MAGAts losing their shit over the research into transgender mice…
Stand at your bus stop and count how many buses arrive. If they're running late it might not be predictable how many do, but you can most definitely count it.
Primes most definitely are countable.
There's no next prime number formula
EDIT: Or try this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06319
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Barbossa had it right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ojK9Q_ARE
No; and nor can any mathematician.
They are discoverable, and listable. And you can count the number that have been discovered (though I’d challenge you to tell us what that number is).
But they are not countable in the mathematical sense.
barrel, compared with just 3% for Tofu and 2% for milk.Poultry is 37%, Oil 13%. MAGA are going to destroy American agriculture in an attempt to own the
libsvegans.So it is countable.
If soy bean production is so valuable, let the market sort it out.
Why does the Federal taxpayer need to be involved?