The notional increase in public borrowing by taking the company into state ownership via administration is economically irrelevant.
Either way we'll be paying for it. We should at least take the assets in return.
Agreed, the taxpayer is on for a shafting no matter what happens. Better to let he finance boys share the problem and make them take their responsibilities seriously.
There is absolutely no reason to shaft the taxpayers. The underlying business, without debt, is profitable.
The problem is the debt. That problem is owned by the bondholders.
Owe the bank £1 000 you can't repay? You have a problem. Owe the bank £1 000 000 000 you can't repay? The bank has a problem.
If the bondholders want to avoid being wiped out they need to act accordingly and accept a haircut on their bad debts. Then the business can survive.
Or they can go into administration and the bondholders can lose everything.
Oh dear, how sad, nevermind.
Exactly.
Managed bankruptcy for public ltd is exactly about this. The debt is killed off in order of seniority until the ship refloats.
What the government needs to do is to legislate to cover the debts to suppliers itself. As a loan to Thames Water. At a suitable interest rate. At the highest seniority.
So during the bankruptcy, there is no pressure on the supply chain. So they will happily carry on supplying pipe, valves etc.
Once the bankruptcy is resolved, the refloated (ha!) company will be able to pay the government back. Trivially. It will be a month or two of supply costs, at most.
Does it even need to legislate? If Thames goes into administration, there's an awful lot of the company that either couldn't be sold off or is so heavily regulated that it couldn't be put to some other use or prices hiked excessively. The company would, however, still have legal obligations so any administration would still need to set aside income for such necessary spending as is needed to deliver on those obligations - or is that the unusual circumstance here that's isn't covered by existing law on bankruptcies?
Existing law suffices.
Indeed, provisions for SAR are explicitly built into water privatisation to ensure continuity of water supplies in the event of SAR.
They've never been exercised yet, no reason they can't be. Its what they're there for.
My first thought was 'isn't everywhere on Vatnsoyrar ten minutes from the airport?'
But tis very nice. And certainly more impressive than anywhere ten minutes from Ringway.
Have you ever read/come across the 'How to train your dragon' series of childrens' books? I always imagined these were set in the Faroes. The landscape described is very like this.
Mind you, I was in Ribblesdale last week under skies of slate and sudden sunbeams and Pen-y-Ghent, Ingleborough and Whernside gave off a similarly Viking air.
The notional increase in public borrowing by taking the company into state ownership via administration is economically irrelevant.
Either way we'll be paying for it. We should at least take the assets in return.
Agreed, the taxpayer is on for a shafting no matter what happens. Better to let he finance boys share the problem and make them take their responsibilities seriously.
There is absolutely no reason to shaft the taxpayers. The underlying business, without debt, is profitable.
The problem is the debt. That problem is owned by the bondholders.
Owe the bank £1 000 you can't repay? You have a problem. Owe the bank £1 000 000 000 you can't repay? The bank has a problem.
If the bondholders want to avoid being wiped out they need to act accordingly and accept a haircut on their bad debts. Then the business can survive.
Or they can go into administration and the bondholders can lose everything.
Oh dear, how sad, nevermind.
Exactly.
Managed bankruptcy for public ltd is exactly about this. The debt is killed off in order of seniority until the ship refloats.
What the government needs to do is to legislate to cover the debts to suppliers itself. As a loan to Thames Water. At a suitable interest rate. At the highest seniority.
So during the bankruptcy, there is no pressure on the supply chain. So they will happily carry on supplying pipe, valves etc.
Once the bankruptcy is resolved, the refloated (ha!) company will be able to pay the government back. Trivially. It will be a month or two of supply costs, at most.
Does it even need to legislate? If Thames goes into administration, there's an awful lot of the company that either couldn't be sold off or is so heavily regulated that it couldn't be put to some other use or prices hiked excessively. The company would, however, still have legal obligations so any administration would still need to set aside income for such necessary spending as is needed to deliver on those obligations - or is that the unusual circumstance here that's isn't covered by existing law on bankruptcies?
Existing law suffices.
Indeed, provisions for SAR are explicitly built into water privatisation to ensure continuity of water supplies in the event of SAR.
They've never been exercised yet, no reason they can't be. Its what they're there for.
Thanks. I had a vague feeling that was the case from having read something on TW and the risk of it going bust a while ago but was doubting myself.
Generally the more religious the population of child bearing age the higher the fertility rate.
Hence globally Muslims have the highest birthrate, then evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews, then Roman Catholics then mainline Protestants and Hindus and liberal Jews and last atheists
Therefore even if the global population declines it will likely become more Muslim and evangelical Christian and Orthodox Jew.
In turn that will lead to women being pushed to motherhood and rearing children not just careers and more women going to university, likely some reversals of LGBTQ rights in some parts and restrictions on abortion too. So longer term that might start to increase global fertility a bit again
The notional increase in public borrowing by taking the company into state ownership via administration is economically irrelevant.
Either way we'll be paying for it. We should at least take the assets in return.
Agreed, the taxpayer is on for a shafting no matter what happens. Better to let he finance boys share the problem and make them take their responsibilities seriously.
There is absolutely no reason to shaft the taxpayers. The underlying business, without debt, is profitable.
The problem is the debt. That problem is owned by the bondholders.
Owe the bank £1 000 you can't repay? You have a problem. Owe the bank £1 000 000 000 you can't repay? The bank has a problem.
If the bondholders want to avoid being wiped out they need to act accordingly and accept a haircut on their bad debts. Then the business can survive.
Or they can go into administration and the bondholders can lose everything.
Oh dear, how sad, nevermind.
Exactly.
Managed bankruptcy for public ltd is exactly about this. The debt is killed off in order of seniority until the ship refloats.
What the government needs to do is to legislate to cover the debts to suppliers itself. As a loan to Thames Water. At a suitable interest rate. At the highest seniority.
So during the bankruptcy, there is no pressure on the supply chain. So they will happily carry on supplying pipe, valves etc.
Once the bankruptcy is resolved, the refloated (ha!) company will be able to pay the government back. Trivially. It will be a month or two of supply costs, at most.
Does it even need to legislate? If Thames goes into administration, there's an awful lot of the company that either couldn't be sold off or is so heavily regulated that it couldn't be put to some other use or prices hiked excessively. The company would, however, still have legal obligations so any administration would still need to set aside income for such necessary spending as is needed to deliver on those obligations - or is that the unusual circumstance here that's isn't covered by existing law on bankruptcies?
It might not be needed - but such action would mean the suppliers bills are (effectively) backed by the Government. This would produce rick solid confidence in the supply chain.
One fear is that suppliers might stop supplying for other than cash.
Another is that lack of confidence could cause knock on bankruptcies as suppliers to suppliers (etc) start demanding COD.
Isn't everything on the Faroes 10 minutes from the airport? I mean they aren't the biggest islands are they!
They're biggish: it's just that no-one lives there. Similar to the Shetlands, where you can also get views like that 10 mins from the airport. Fun fact; the main road on the Shetlands goes across the *runway* of the islands' main airport. Feels a bit weird crossing it on the way to Jarlshof (which is a better visit than Scara Brae, by the way)/
Generally the more religious the population of child bearing age the higher the fertility rate.
Hence globally Muslims have the highest birthrate, then evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews, then Roman Catholics then mainline Protestants and Hindus and liberal Jews and last atheists
Therefore even if the global population declines it will likely become more Muslim and evangelical Christian and Orthodox Jew.
In turn that will lead to women being pushed to motherhood and rearing children not just careers, likely some reversals of LGBTQ rights in some parts and restrictions on abortion too. So longer term that might start to increase global fertility a bit again
No, I mean birth rates are declining, not population. That's the phenomenon I find most interesting. I do agree with your point that at a point in time there is a correlation between birth rate and belief - but the point I am making is that over the last generation, birth rates in all societies have decreased, many dramatically - and there is no reason to think that the trends seen in Bangladesh over the last generation will not be seen in Chad and the rest in the next.
Isn't everything on the Faroes 10 minutes from the airport? I mean they aren't the biggest islands are they!
They're biggish: it's just that no-one lives there. Similar to the Shetlands, where you can also get views like that 10 mins from the airport. Fun fact; the main road on the Shetlands goes across the *runway* of the islands' main airport. Feels a bit weird crossing it on the way to Jarlshof (which is a better visit than Scara Brae, by the way)/
Not sure anywhere in Shetland compares to this, except perhaps Foula, but not really
Generally the more religious the population of child bearing age the higher the fertility rate.
Hence globally Muslims have the highest birthrate, then evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews, then Roman Catholics then mainline Protestants and Hindus and liberal Jews and last atheists
Therefore even if the global population declines it will likely become more Muslim and evangelical Christian and Orthodox Jew.
In turn that will lead to women being pushed to motherhood and rearing children not just careers, likely some reversals of LGBTQ rights in some parts and restrictions on abortion too. So longer term that might start to increase global fertility a bit again
Wrong. Do you even know what the word declining means?
3.1 is more than 2.7
A hypothetical change from 6 per woman to 3.1 per woman is a decline. Indeed its a steep decline.
A hypothetical change from 1.1 per woman to 2.7 per woman is an increase. Indeed its a steep increase.
That 3.1 is more than 2.7 doesn't change the fact that in that scenario the 3.1 is a decline, while the 2.7 is an increase.
Declining rates has nothing to do with whether the rate is higher or lower than elsewhere, its about whether its higher or lower than the same rate in previous years.
Probably for the best that we’re now on a 1 pic a day limit. Otherwise by now I’d have posted 17,397 photos
It literally makes you gasp. The awesome noominess
How we draw the map affects how we perceive things. I recall that during the Viking era you could make a case that the Faroes were the centre of gravity for the Viking world, and draw a map as such.
Generally the more religious the population of child bearing age the higher the fertility rate.
Hence globally Muslims have the highest birthrate, then evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews, then Roman Catholics then mainline Protestants and Hindus and liberal Jews and last atheists
Therefore even if the global population declines it will likely become more Muslim and evangelical Christian and Orthodox Jew.
In turn that will lead to women being pushed to motherhood and rearing children not just careers, likely some reversals of LGBTQ rights in some parts and restrictions on abortion too. So longer term that might start to increase global fertility a bit again
Wrong. Do you even know what the word declining means?
3.1 is more than 2.7
A hypothetical change from 6 per woman to 3.1 per woman is a decline. Indeed its a steep decline.
A hypothetical change from 1.1 per woman to 2.7 per woman is an increase. Indeed its a steep increase.
That 3.1 is more than 2.7 doesn't change the fact that in that scenario the 3.1 is a decline, while the 2.7 is an increase.
Declining rates has nothing to do with whether the rate is higher or lower than elsewhere, its about whether its higher or lower than the same rate in previous years.
Even as I was writing my earlier, lengthier post, I thought "HYUFD's going to disagree with this - he's going to say it's down to religion". I've had this argument with him before. But happily I think I now understand the nature of our disagreement: he is talking about population growth/decline correlating with religion, while I'm talking about birth rate growth/decline, which doesn't appear to be. I think in mathematical terms he is talking about the first order differential while I am talking about the second. I think I understand and accept his point, but it's a different point than the one I was making. I think.
A 13% lead for Unionists in Northern Ireland is still pretty comfortable. While there is no nationalist majority at Stormont there will be no border poll anyway.
Not forgetting of course that the DUP and TUV would declare UDI for Antrim and East Londonderry rather than ever accept Dublin rule. Northern Ireland being created in the first place as hundreds of thousands of diehard Ulster Protestants had taken up arms rather than be forced to accept Home Rule and being pushed into the new Irish Free State against their will
Is UDI something that DUP and TUV politicians talk about much?
The only place I've heard it mentioned is from you on here, but if other people are talking about it and I've missed it I'd be interested in seeing links.
The DUP and TUV are clear they would never accept Dublin rule.
People forget the Irish Free state was created NOT just by the 1918 SF majority in Ireland but by violence and bombings from the IRA and the Irish War of Independence which lasted until 1921.
Northern Ireland was effectively created by violence too and the Ulster Protestants who took up arms to resist Home Rule and Dublin rule.
The prospect of the LVF and UVF planting bombs again would be inevitable if they ever faced Dublin rule
Inevitable? Really?? What about, you know, democracy?
As I said, democracy ultimately neither created the Irish Free State or Northern Ireland. Bombs, terrorism, war and guns did
That was a hundred years ago.
This is the same kind of language that extreme Afrikaaners came out with before the end of apartheid, referencing the Boer War and even earlier conflicts. In the end, they just accepted it and moved on.
Ireland is not the dirt-poor backwater of embedded mystical popery that they like to imagine.
The terrorist war between the IRA and UVF and LVF wasn't 100 years ago, it only ended just over 25 years ago and even now splinter factions are still planting the odd bomb. Orange Order parades still get large attendance, including young people leading the marching, based on fervent defiance of Popery and Dublin.
Not all Afrikaaners have accepted ANC South Africa either, indeed Orania is a rapidly growing white Afrikaner only separatist enclave in South Africa
Well, in violence comes, violence comes. As you note, many things in Ireland have come with violence before, during and after. It shouldn't be a driving factor in decision-making - though the minimisation of it by prudent policing and security work, as well as political activity, should be.
Either way though, if Northern Ireland votes to unite, that should be, and will be, that: unification will follow - though the terms will still need to be negotiated.
In your middle class liberal view, in the view of Protestant Unionist DUP and TUV voters accepting Dublin rule would be a betrayal of their culture and very identify, they would never accept that and would push for UDI with LVF and UVF resuming a bombing campaign if efforts were made to try and stop that
They're free to campaign through the democratic process, the same as anyone else. If they take to violence then fuck them and their so-called army.
Frankly, from their oppositionist attitude to just about everything ever proposed in Northern Ireland, from Home Rule to Brexit deals and beyond, they're their own worst enemy. I am not remotely interested in protecting people whose identity is based on that level of intolerance.
Do they care? As they have proved over the decades and indeed centuries Protestant Ulster men are willing to fight to protect their culture.
Given the IRA bombed their way to Irish independence and the GFA and powersharing, why would not Protestant loyalist paramilitaries do the same to protect their homeland if they have to?
If they insist on fighting then others can insist on those that do dying. They don't have a veto. Anyway, what exactly does 'protect their homeland' mean in this context?
As for the IRA, they called off their 'war' in the 1990s because they were losing: their network was badly compromised and they were getting nowhere. The GFA was, as was said at the time, Sunningdale for slow learners. The IRA and its political associates didn't get anything that wasn't reasonable for minority rights.
If there is a border poll, and if the nationalists win - neither of which is guaranteed any time soon - then there's a discussion to be had on whether Northern Ireland retains devolution within the Republic or whether it joins on the basis of the rest of the country; on the how, not the if. But it is a discussion, it's not a fight; and the fundamental question would already have been settled.
The notional increase in public borrowing by taking the company into state ownership via administration is economically irrelevant.
Either way we'll be paying for it. We should at least take the assets in return.
Agreed, the taxpayer is on for a shafting no matter what happens. Better to let he finance boys share the problem and make them take their responsibilities seriously.
There is absolutely no reason to shaft the taxpayers. The underlying business, without debt, is profitable.
The problem is the debt. That problem is owned by the bondholders.
Owe the bank £1 000 you can't repay? You have a problem. Owe the bank £1 000 000 000 you can't repay? The bank has a problem.
If the bondholders want to avoid being wiped out they need to act accordingly and accept a haircut on their bad debts. Then the business can survive.
Or they can go into administration and the bondholders can lose everything.
Oh dear, how sad, nevermind.
They know the government is weak and poor at negotiating though. They'll probably get their debts taken on by the state with no haircut and get to keep the assets. That's how shit Starmer is.
He will also offer them compensation for their distress of 55 times their holdings value
Probably for the best that we’re now on a 1 pic a day limit. Otherwise by now I’d have posted 17,397 photos
It literally makes you gasp. The awesome noominess
How we draw the map affects how we perceive things. I recall that during the Viking era you could make a case that the Faroes were the centre of gravity for the Viking world, and draw a map as such.
During the Covid months I did a Zoom WEA course on Icelandic literature and we were shown a slide with a map of the North Atlantic..... saga territory ...... which showed more or less that.
Well, well, well. Today's tame Reform interview involves new Chairman Dr David Bull.
The BBC will be able to string this out to the next GE at this rate.
Isn't that a good thing? Nick Griffen's bubble burst in the headlights of public scrutiny. One appearance on Question Time was all it took.
Surely scrutinising Reform day in, day out until the election is good? Frankly a bit more scrutiny of the Ming Vase might have been good last year,
Took a feckin long time for Griffin's bubble to burst in that case given the BNP had their best ever GE result 7 months later. Obviously the sophisticated UK electorate thought we'll give Nicky Nazi one more chance. Alternatively Farage took over the xenophobe mantle very soon after, though the disinfectant of sunlight of dozens of QT appearances didn't seem to harm his bubble in the slightest.
That's because he's very good and invariably those he's up against in this scenarios talk more shite than he does.
Griffin/BNP never had electoral appeal. The authoritarian explicitly anti-black explicitly racist far right doesn't.
People are behind the curve. Farage needed to get the support of populist voters and he has. He has clearly moved to the socially conservative centre ground of the broad social democrat consensus, with the addition of a strong closed borders policy. He doesn't have policies that will frighten the horses. He has to survive several years with curently a strong support base, the other parties very feeble and Reform having a very fragile leadership team.
The great need is for Lab/Tory and LD to get their narrative skills up to speed, and tell a much better story than Farage does. And appear more competent and more confident about the electorate.
I don't think that's really an appropriate description. Modern social democracy is about the veneration and growth of the state, and its mores and rules. Reform wants to cut the state and its mores and rules, quite radically in some areas, but extend its role in others.
I also wonder how much of it is simply brought on by necessity. The steelworks of Port Talbot and Scunthorpe cannot exist without Government support of some sort, but that’s not their fault, it's the fault of wretched short-sighted policies over many years. A lot of Reform's recommendations seem to be a last ditch attempt to save these capabilities, rather than committed social democracy.
Either way, I would like (and I think it's more possible now than ever before) to have two party politics with Reform on the left and the Tories on the right. A small state sound money Gladstonian party (Tories) vs. a more interventionist but still very patriotic party (Reform), would rid us of the corrosive effect of the anti-British decision makers who have been running the show for many decades.
Not going to happen, more likely would be LDs on the cultural liberal globalist side and Reform on the cultural right nationalist side if we replace the economic battle of the last century between the Conservatives and Labour with a cultural battle this century.
Though a small Conservative party on the lines you describe could still survive, especially if we have PR, alongside a slightly bigger left of centre Labour party still representing the public sector and students
Well it is absolutely wishful thinking but I theorise the Tory vote share at the moment is depressed by at least two points of shy Toryism. Never was there a shyer time to be a Tory.
I'm particularly interested in "no one has a single good explanation". That's the aspect that fascinates me. When I learned demographics in GCSE georgraphy, the explanations of each of stages 1-4 were fairly succinct. But it's not obvious why stage 5 of declining birth rates should kick in. It's a theme common to all societies: religious and secular; collectivist and individualist. Peter Zeihan has suggested its a feature of urbanisation, which I find semi-convincing - but urban Victorian Britain wasn't really known for small families - so I don't think it's an inherent feature. There is much to discuss about da yoof's ineptitude at meeting and mating and breeding - but I don't think that's the whole explanation either.
I have a hypothesis: that low birth rates are an inherent feature of a) top-heavy population pyramids, and b) rapidly aging populations. This is because, whatever the set-up of the society, the older a population is and the faster it ages, the more resources have to be expended on the old, so the fewer resources are available for the young. So the young end up without the means to afford the bare minimum they perceive that they require in order to breed (largely, a big enough house, but also the time resources to bring up the child). This is true whether those resources are state resources or individual resources; and whether those resources are money or time or effort. When I've tried to explain this hypothesis to people in the past, they've tended to dismiss it by reference to their own example ("well our decision to have children was nothing to do with the presence of grandparents*"), but averaged over a whole society I think there might be something in it. Not least because it is a common feature of all societies with dropping birth rates.
There's something in all this about relative standards of living between children and parents, but I think there's something to work with there.
*Actually, to generalise from myself: we'd have always had a first child if we could - and, being reasonably well-off, a second - but we almost certainly wouldn't have had a third were it not for an inheritance a couple of years previously, which had enabled us to buy a house with a bedroom in which to put said child...
Falling fertility rates if you want to point a finger, I would largely suspect pollution especially some of the chemicals going into our water such as the rising estrogen rate
Generally the more religious the population of child bearing age the higher the fertility rate.
Hence globally Muslims have the highest birthrate, then evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews, then Roman Catholics then mainline Protestants and Hindus and liberal Jews and last atheists
Therefore even if the global population declines it will likely become more Muslim and evangelical Christian and Orthodox Jew.
In turn that will lead to women being pushed to motherhood and rearing children not just careers, likely some reversals of LGBTQ rights in some parts and restrictions on abortion too. So longer term that might start to increase global fertility a bit again
Wrong. Do you even know what the word declining means?
3.1 is more than 2.7
A hypothetical change from 6 per woman to 3.1 per woman is a decline. Indeed its a steep decline.
A hypothetical change from 1.1 per woman to 2.7 per woman is an increase. Indeed its a steep increase.
That 3.1 is more than 2.7 doesn't change the fact that in that scenario the 3.1 is a decline, while the 2.7 is an increase.
Declining rates has nothing to do with whether the rate is higher or lower than elsewhere, its about whether its higher or lower than the same rate in previous years.
We were talking about the global position, which is a world becoming ever more Muslim as percentage wise Muslims have the most children and to a lesser extent more evangelical Christian as they are the second most fertile group.
So whatever the rate change that means in turn a shift back to global social conservatism and a more traditional view of the family, probably by 2050
A 13% lead for Unionists in Northern Ireland is still pretty comfortable. While there is no nationalist majority at Stormont there will be no border poll anyway.
Not forgetting of course that the DUP and TUV would declare UDI for Antrim and East Londonderry rather than ever accept Dublin rule. Northern Ireland being created in the first place as hundreds of thousands of diehard Ulster Protestants had taken up arms rather than be forced to accept Home Rule and being pushed into the new Irish Free State against their will
Is UDI something that DUP and TUV politicians talk about much?
The only place I've heard it mentioned is from you on here, but if other people are talking about it and I've missed it I'd be interested in seeing links.
The DUP and TUV are clear they would never accept Dublin rule.
People forget the Irish Free state was created NOT just by the 1918 SF majority in Ireland but by violence and bombings from the IRA and the Irish War of Independence which lasted until 1921.
Northern Ireland was effectively created by violence too and the Ulster Protestants who took up arms to resist Home Rule and Dublin rule.
The prospect of the LVF and UVF planting bombs again would be inevitable if they ever faced Dublin rule
Inevitable? Really?? What about, you know, democracy?
As I said, democracy ultimately neither created the Irish Free State or Northern Ireland. Bombs, terrorism, war and guns did
That was a hundred years ago.
This is the same kind of language that extreme Afrikaaners came out with before the end of apartheid, referencing the Boer War and even earlier conflicts. In the end, they just accepted it and moved on.
Ireland is not the dirt-poor backwater of embedded mystical popery that they like to imagine.
The terrorist war between the IRA and UVF and LVF wasn't 100 years ago, it only ended just over 25 years ago and even now splinter factions are still planting the odd bomb. Orange Order parades still get large attendance, including young people leading the marching, based on fervent defiance of Popery and Dublin.
Not all Afrikaaners have accepted ANC South Africa either, indeed Orania is a rapidly growing white Afrikaner only separatist enclave in South Africa
Well, in violence comes, violence comes. As you note, many things in Ireland have come with violence before, during and after. It shouldn't be a driving factor in decision-making - though the minimisation of it by prudent policing and security work, as well as political activity, should be.
Either way though, if Northern Ireland votes to unite, that should be, and will be, that: unification will follow - though the terms will still need to be negotiated.
In your middle class liberal view, in the view of Protestant Unionist DUP and TUV voters accepting Dublin rule would be a betrayal of their culture and very identify, they would never accept that and would push for UDI with LVF and UVF resuming a bombing campaign if efforts were made to try and stop that
They're free to campaign through the democratic process, the same as anyone else. If they take to violence then fuck them and their so-called army.
Frankly, from their oppositionist attitude to just about everything ever proposed in Northern Ireland, from Home Rule to Brexit deals and beyond, they're their own worst enemy. I am not remotely interested in protecting people whose identity is based on that level of intolerance.
Do they care? As they have proved over the decades and indeed centuries Protestant Ulster men are willing to fight to protect their culture.
Given the IRA bombed their way to Irish independence and the GFA and powersharing, why would not Protestant loyalist paramilitaries do the same to protect their homeland if they have to?
If they insist on fighting then others can insist on those that do dying. They don't have a veto. Anyway, what exactly does 'protect their homeland' mean in this context?
As for the IRA, they called off their 'war' in the 1990s because they were losing: their network was badly compromised and they were getting nowhere. The GFA was, as was said at the time, Sunningdale for slow learners. The IRA and its political associates didn't get anything that wasn't reasonable for minority rights.
If there is a border poll, and if the nationalists win - neither of which is guaranteed any time soon - then there's a discussion to be had on whether Northern Ireland retains devolution within the Republic or whether it joins on the basis of the rest of the country; on the how, not the if. But it is a discussion, it's not a fight; and the fundamental question would already have been settled.
Dublin can try and insist on fighting the loyalist paramilitaries if they want and imposing Dublin rule on Antrim much as London imposed their rule on republican areas of Ireland in the last century when the IRA were active.
However the terrorist war would continue, likely for decades.
The IRA didn't lose, they got a powersharing government in NI with a SF FM now and the GFA offering the prospect of a united Ireland if a majority of NI wished that.
The DUP and even more the TUV of course never accepted the GFA anyway so of course they would take no part in discussions for how Dublin rule looked as you suggest but just declare UDI for their areas
A 13% lead for Unionists in Northern Ireland is still pretty comfortable. While there is no nationalist majority at Stormont there will be no border poll anyway.
Not forgetting of course that the DUP and TUV would declare UDI for Antrim and East Londonderry rather than ever accept Dublin rule. Northern Ireland being created in the first place as hundreds of thousands of diehard Ulster Protestants had taken up arms rather than be forced to accept Home Rule and being pushed into the new Irish Free State against their will
Is UDI something that DUP and TUV politicians talk about much?
The only place I've heard it mentioned is from you on here, but if other people are talking about it and I've missed it I'd be interested in seeing links.
The DUP and TUV are clear they would never accept Dublin rule.
People forget the Irish Free state was created NOT just by the 1918 SF majority in Ireland but by violence and bombings from the IRA and the Irish War of Independence which lasted until 1921.
Northern Ireland was effectively created by violence too and the Ulster Protestants who took up arms to resist Home Rule and Dublin rule.
The prospect of the LVF and UVF planting bombs again would be inevitable if they ever faced Dublin rule
Inevitable? Really?? What about, you know, democracy?
As I said, democracy ultimately neither created the Irish Free State or Northern Ireland. Bombs, terrorism, war and guns did
That was a hundred years ago.
This is the same kind of language that extreme Afrikaaners came out with before the end of apartheid, referencing the Boer War and even earlier conflicts. In the end, they just accepted it and moved on.
Ireland is not the dirt-poor backwater of embedded mystical popery that they like to imagine.
The terrorist war between the IRA and UVF and LVF wasn't 100 years ago, it only ended just over 25 years ago and even now splinter factions are still planting the odd bomb. Orange Order parades still get large attendance, including young people leading the marching, based on fervent defiance of Popery and Dublin.
Not all Afrikaaners have accepted ANC South Africa either, indeed Orania is a rapidly growing white Afrikaner only separatist enclave in South Africa
Well, in violence comes, violence comes. As you note, many things in Ireland have come with violence before, during and after. It shouldn't be a driving factor in decision-making - though the minimisation of it by prudent policing and security work, as well as political activity, should be.
Either way though, if Northern Ireland votes to unite, that should be, and will be, that: unification will follow - though the terms will still need to be negotiated.
In your middle class liberal view, in the view of Protestant Unionist DUP and TUV voters accepting Dublin rule would be a betrayal of their culture and very identify, they would never accept that and would push for UDI with LVF and UVF resuming a bombing campaign if efforts were made to try and stop that
They're free to campaign through the democratic process, the same as anyone else. If they take to violence then fuck them and their so-called army.
Frankly, from their oppositionist attitude to just about everything ever proposed in Northern Ireland, from Home Rule to Brexit deals and beyond, they're their own worst enemy. I am not remotely interested in protecting people whose identity is based on that level of intolerance.
Do they care? As they have proved over the decades and indeed centuries Protestant Ulster men are willing to fight to protect their culture.
Given the IRA bombed their way to Irish independence and the GFA and powersharing, why would not Protestant loyalist paramilitaries do the same to protect their homeland if they have to?
If they insist on fighting then others can insist on those that do dying. They don't have a veto. Anyway, what exactly does 'protect their homeland' mean in this context?
As for the IRA, they called off their 'war' in the 1990s because they were losing: their network was badly compromised and they were getting nowhere. The GFA was, as was said at the time, Sunningdale for slow learners. The IRA and its political associates didn't get anything that wasn't reasonable for minority rights.
If there is a border poll, and if the nationalists win - neither of which is guaranteed any time soon - then there's a discussion to be had on whether Northern Ireland retains devolution within the Republic or whether it joins on the basis of the rest of the country; on the how, not the if. But it is a discussion, it's not a fight; and the fundamental question would already have been settled.
I can see that loyalist Protestants wouldn't be happy, and would take the decision with their usual good grace.
Loyalists would have nothing to be loyal to, however as the British government would have approved the decision. They would be in the same position as Empire Loyalists in a number of other places. The Loyalists in the USA either accepted the new status quo or cleared out to the UK or Canada, being the making of Ontario etc. The Pied Noir and Algerian Loyalists headed for Metropolitan France. The White Rhodesians either accepted Mugabe or left for South Africa, Australia or Britain, etc etc.
That’s such a disingenuous article. It spends half the article splitting hairs about whether the use of the word “exodus ” is appropriate which shows how desperate it is.
The parameters it uses are carefully couched - it tries to disarm the argument that a lot of “milliknaires” are people who own property by giving a figure used of £1m in liquid assets
The thing is that it isn’t people with £1-2m liquid assets leaving, it’s the people with £100m and more.
These people are a huge loss to the UK economy, and it’s tedious to have to go over this for the millionth time here - every single one of the millionaires, and billionaires leaving, are people who, despite paying lower % rates through planning, still contribute absolute shit loads of tax directly and indirectly to the UK economy.
Normal direct taxes plus VAT on the vast amounts of things they buy. Taxes on the staff and services they employ etc etc.
They are also the people who would be setting up multiple businesses in the UK which they now won’t.
I cannot without doxxing myself explain to you how f-ing annoying this blindness is on here and tell you who is leaving the UK and their wealth.
I am directly and indirectly involved with many many who have just and are in the process of leaving the UK and the total wealth is billions. They are all setting up and or moving businesses.
This is just one small jurisdiction.
Inevitably this will receive the same responses that these people can leave if they don’t want to pay their taxes - you are losing crazy amounts of tax and so much new business and growth and entrepreneurs on top of new industries.
This is all money and future growth you have lost because prejudices will not allow you to say “maybe it’s better we make the country attractive to the wealthy so we get a bit of their money rather than tell them we hate them and have none of their money”.
The crass stupidity makes me want to weep. And it so often comes from witless clueless middle class lefty saps in the public sector, who haven’t got the brains, balls or imagination to start a fifty quid business let alone a fifty million quid business
The thinking seems to go: "well I'm not going to leave so they must be lying when they say they are". It doesn't occur to these types that the super rich are more motivated by money than the rest of us - not to mention more mobile. Again, it's an utter failure to see things from someone else's point of view.
This sad obsession with money is of course one of the reasons that they are super rich. The article seems focused on wage slaves like me who between their pension, their house and their ISA could probably scrape together £1m but struggle to fund a weekend away let alone a move abroad.
Fluent Twatney speaker with a weird sideline in positive reinforcement.
Thomas Skinner ⚒ @iamtomskinner · 9 Jun If you’re reading this… You are perfect, you are enough, and you are loved. Never forget it. Keep going. You’ve got this. ❤️💪
Comments
Indeed, provisions for SAR are explicitly built into water privatisation to ensure continuity of water supplies in the event of SAR.
They've never been exercised yet, no reason they can't be. Its what they're there for.
But tis very nice. And certainly more impressive than anywhere ten minutes from Ringway.
Have you ever read/come across the 'How to train your dragon' series of childrens' books? I always imagined these were set in the Faroes. The landscape described is very like this.
Mind you, I was in Ribblesdale last week under skies of slate and sudden sunbeams and Pen-y-Ghent, Ingleborough and Whernside gave off a similarly Viking air.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/#:~:text=Globally, Muslims have the highest,to maintain a stable population.&text=Christians are second, at 2.7,the global average (2.5).
Therefore even if the global population declines it will likely become more Muslim and evangelical Christian and Orthodox Jew.
In turn that will lead to women being pushed to motherhood and rearing children not just careers and more women going to university, likely some reversals of LGBTQ rights in some parts and restrictions on abortion too. So longer term that might start to increase global fertility a bit again
It literally makes you gasp. The awesome noominess
One fear is that suppliers might stop supplying for other than cash.
Another is that lack of confidence could cause knock on bankruptcies as suppliers to suppliers (etc) start demanding COD.
The closest comparison is possibly St Kilda
3.1 is more than 2.7
A hypothetical change from 6 per woman to 3.1 per woman is a decline. Indeed its a steep decline.
A hypothetical change from 1.1 per woman to 2.7 per woman is an increase. Indeed its a steep increase.
That 3.1 is more than 2.7 doesn't change the fact that in that scenario the 3.1 is a decline, while the 2.7 is an increase.
Declining rates has nothing to do with whether the rate is higher or lower than elsewhere, its about whether its higher or lower than the same rate in previous years.
NEW THREAD
As for the IRA, they called off their 'war' in the 1990s because they were losing: their network was badly compromised and they were getting nowhere. The GFA was, as was said at the time, Sunningdale for slow learners. The IRA and its political associates didn't get anything that wasn't reasonable for minority rights.
If there is a border poll, and if the nationalists win - neither of which is guaranteed any time soon - then there's a discussion to be had on whether Northern Ireland retains devolution within the Republic or whether it joins on the basis of the rest of the country; on the how, not the if. But it is a discussion, it's not a fight; and the fundamental question would already have been settled.
Indeed.
So whatever the rate change that means in turn a shift back to global social conservatism and a more traditional view of the family, probably by 2050
However the terrorist war would continue, likely for decades.
The IRA didn't lose, they got a powersharing government in NI with a SF FM now and the GFA offering the prospect of a united Ireland if a majority of NI wished that.
The DUP and even more the TUV of course never accepted the GFA anyway so of course they would take no part in discussions for how Dublin rule looked as you suggest but just declare UDI for their areas
Loyalists would have nothing to be loyal to, however as the British government would have approved the decision. They would be in the same position as Empire Loyalists in a number of other places. The Loyalists in the USA either accepted the new status quo or cleared out to the UK or Canada, being the making of Ontario etc. The Pied Noir and Algerian Loyalists headed for Metropolitan France. The White Rhodesians either accepted Mugabe or left for South Africa, Australia or Britain, etc etc.