Funny dat. No mention of Brexit. Except very obliquely: "'Visa anxiety' – the fear that they won't be able to work in Britain and visit Poland easily – is another often stated reason.'
Its quite funny really. The DM doesn't seem to be able to link Brexit and our economic decline either. I wonder why.
Because we are not declining?
Setting aside the error bars on GDP growth a 0.1% fall is flat not “declining”
I think we have another case of Schrodingers economy, beating all our peers but destroyed by Reeves...
Not a surprise or a shock, Europe has been failing for decades.
Its why we were right to leave the failing institution.
We need to do better than our peers. Freed from the shackles of being EU members, we just might, but it depends upon us doing the right things.
Well I'm glad you are feeling unshackled. We'll put that on the plus side of the Brexit ledger. It needs it. Looking a bit bare
@rcs1000 or @StillWaters is global entry worth the hassle, I've got about 8-10 trips to LA per year for the foreseeable future and was wondering if I should bother with the interviews etc...
Also, for all the talk about US border security under Trump being crazy I had a fast and professional experience yesterday. Asked for my passport, scanned it, scanned my fingerprints and took my picture and she let me through. Didn't ask about my reservation or plans or anything really. This is on a fresh esta as well because I haven't been to the US for a while. Compared to last time under Biden it was far, far smoother. That time I got 20 questions, had to show evidence I had a return journey and I had to source a copy of the wedding invitation for the wedding I was attending.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
The Swiss defence strategy is simply making it absolute hell for anyone who tries to attack. They will get you in the mountains and the passes. They are the country version of a porcupine.
They also know where any invaders money is which is quite a neat tactic too.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
The Swiss defence strategy is simply making it absolute hell for anyone who tries to attack. They will get you in the mountains and the passes. They are the country version of a porcupine.
They also know where any invaders money is which is quite a neat tactic too.
Unless of course the invasion happens on a weekend.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
The Swiss defence strategy is simply making it absolute hell for anyone who tries to attack. They will get you in the mountains and the passes. They are the country version of a porcupine.
They also know where any invaders money is which is quite a neat tactic too.
Anybody who has ever experienced the relative prosperity, social cohesion and standard of governance in both Switzerland and the UK will know which is the superior strategy.
@rcs1000 or @StillWaters is global entry worth the hassle, I've got about 8-10 trips to LA per year for the foreseeable future and was wondering if I should bother with the interviews etc...
Also, for all the talk about US border security under Trump being crazy I had a fast and professional experience yesterday. Asked for my passport, scanned it, scanned my fingerprints and took my picture and she let me through. Didn't ask about my reservation or plans or anything really. This is on a fresh esta as well because I haven't been to the US for a while. Compared to last time under Biden it was far, far smoother. That time I got 20 questions, had to show evidence I had a return journey and I had to source a copy of the wedding invitation for the wedding I was attending.
I think so - about 15 minutes but the key benefit is that you don’t get stuck behind a flight from china in immigration if your plane is delayed
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
The Swiss defence strategy is simply making it absolute hell for anyone who tries to attack. They will get you in the mountains and the passes. They are the country version of a porcupine.
They also know where any invaders money is which is quite a neat tactic too.
They are quite heavily armed for a neutral nation surrounded by mountains and friendly countries.
Did you know that they seriously considered having their own nukes, back on the 1950s and 60s?
Greens plan to punish male members who correct women
Men who correct women could face disciplinary action under plans being considered by the Green Party.
Party bosses are considering a proposal to broaden the Greens’ definition of misogyny to the point that “any disagreement” between the sexes could lead to the man facing a sanction.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
The Swiss defence strategy is simply making it absolute hell for anyone who tries to attack. They will get you in the mountains and the passes. They are the country version of a porcupine.
They also know where any invaders money is which is quite a neat tactic too.
Unless of course the invasion happens on a weekend.
The penalties for invading during a Sunday would be ferocious.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
The Swiss defence strategy is simply making it absolute hell for anyone who tries to attack. They will get you in the mountains and the passes. They are the country version of a porcupine.
They also know where any invaders money is which is quite a neat tactic too.
They are quite heavily armed for a neutral nation surrounded by mountains and friendly countries.
Did you know that they seriously considered having their own nukes, back on the 1950s and 60s?
As long as the German Swiss had control - the French Swiss are a bit angry and feisty.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
The Swiss defence strategy is simply making it absolute hell for anyone who tries to attack. They will get you in the mountains and the passes. They are the country version of a porcupine.
They also know where any invaders money is which is quite a neat tactic too.
Unless of course the invasion happens on a weekend.
The penalties for invading during a Sunday would be ferocious.
Greens plan to punish male members who correct women
Men who correct women could face disciplinary action under plans being considered by the Green Party.
Party bosses are considering a proposal to broaden the Greens’ definition of misogyny to the point that “any disagreement” between the sexes could lead to the man facing a sanction.
A proposal is not a plan. As the Daily Tel should know, being a serious newspaper and all.
Greens plan to punish male members who correct women
Men who correct women could face disciplinary action under plans being considered by the Green Party.
Party bosses are considering a proposal to broaden the Greens’ definition of misogyny to the point that “any disagreement” between the sexes could lead to the man facing a sanction.
A proposal is not a plan. As the Daily Tel should know, being a serious newspaper and all.
@rcs1000 or @StillWaters is global entry worth the hassle, I've got about 8-10 trips to LA per year for the foreseeable future and was wondering if I should bother with the interviews etc...
Also, for all the talk about US border security under Trump being crazy I had a fast and professional experience yesterday. Asked for my passport, scanned it, scanned my fingerprints and took my picture and she let me through. Didn't ask about my reservation or plans or anything really. This is on a fresh esta as well because I haven't been to the US for a while. Compared to last time under Biden it was far, far smoother. That time I got 20 questions, had to show evidence I had a return journey and I had to source a copy of the wedding invitation for the wedding I was attending.
I think so - about 15 minutes but the key benefit is that you don’t get stuck behind a flight from china in immigration if your plane is delayed
Yeah that does sound useful, I'll have to look into it in the new year. How long does an application usually take?
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
The Swiss defence strategy is simply making it absolute hell for anyone who tries to attack. They will get you in the mountains and the passes. They are the country version of a porcupine.
They also know where any invaders money is which is quite a neat tactic too.
Unless of course the invasion happens on a weekend.
The penalties for invading during a Sunday would be ferocious.
Almost as bad as mowing your lawn before 1200.
Well, driving a tank over *someone else’s* lawn. Before 1200. On a Sunday…
The response would be Biblical. Unthinkable. For centuries people would tell each other of the fate of the tank crew…
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
Unlike Ireland, they have some pretty capable armed forces. The calculation is more to make the effort if invading them not worth it, I think ? As have sufficient teeth to destroy any small scale efforts; Ireland doesn't even have that.
Greens plan to punish male members who correct women
Men who correct women could face disciplinary action under plans being considered by the Green Party.
Party bosses are considering a proposal to broaden the Greens’ definition of misogyny to the point that “any disagreement” between the sexes could lead to the man facing a sanction.
In New Zealand (which has PR), the Greens sit at a permanent 10% and their core voter is 20-50 year old women with mental health issues.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
Wouldn't they need to go through an "accession period" just as the likes of Poland and Romania had to before becoming full members?
I hadn't realised that Switzerland holds referendums on these deals.
Switzerland will no longer buy 36 F-35As after its claim that Bern would pay a fixed price for the contract was rejected by Washington. It will now buy fewer aircraft, but within the 6 billion Swiss Franc framework allocated. They have not yet said how many they will purchase. https://x.com/Rotorfocus/status/1999491624293011490
"The Federal Council and the Parliament had approved the purchase at a cost of 6 billion CHF."
IIRC you can hold a referendum on any action of the Swiss government or law. Just need to get enough signatures on a petition.
I think it is a good system.
It's a system where almost nothing ever gets decided. Maybe sclerosis is underestimated. The word is normally used as an insult around here.
I mean that seriously. So there's a big debate about whether to do something. Either there's an eventual vote where the people decide not to bother, or it's already been put in the too difficult basket because proponents know it's never going to pass. People accept no change because it's their collective choice. Switzerland is a haven for small c conservatives, which is maybe not a bad thing in a chaotic world.
But, then again, the Swiss manage to build infrastructure and housing. Certainly better than we manage.
The problem comes back things such as we can only build hideous mass estates and take 27 years to do that. As opposed to development that local people like and might even benefit them.
Not sure, at least on housing. Switzerland has an extreme housing crisis. Nimbyism is live and kicking. Also - just an impression - the housing stock looks kind of dated. A lot of apartments dating from the 1960s and 1970s, not so much recent build.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
Wouldn't they need to go through an "accession period" just as the likes of Poland and Romania had to before becoming full members?
The current proposal simply says that they would join 1 Jan 2027.
Brexit could well be an issue but a bigger one may simply be economic reality. Back in 2004 the UK looked much more prosperous than Poland. Now? Not so much. That's certainly the feeling I got from speaking to a Pole last year.
What would be interesting is some kind of comparison with other European countries Poles have migrated to such as France and Germany.
I wonder what the factors are in Poland’s high growth? Perhaps it’s to do with greater economic integration with their neighbours through some sort of free trade area.
Is this not in phases?
The early years were initial rebound from communism. Then influx of especially German companies after lower cost manufacture. Then continued growth sustained by heavy EU investment in infrastructure.
A rough Google AI estimate of EU institutional investment in Poland is 12 billion Euro per annum over the period 2004 to 2023. On a GDP growing from 250 to 800 billion Euro over the period, that is a major underpinning.
One reason that a chunk of German politicians are quite keen on integrating Ukraine into the EU system is that that EU investment in Ukraine as it comes up to speed will provide a huge opportunity for German companies. Much as the development of Poland (and other Eastern European countries) did.
Pre war, there was massive investment going on - remember the dislocations in apparently Western European products, due to components from Ukraine not being there anymore?
Ukraine's integration into Europe would be if huge benefit, both economically to both parties, and for the security of both.
It would need a treaty change to get them in due to their mind-bending levels of corruption and poverty that are a million verst (genitive plural, don't fuck it up) from the accession criteria. They couldn't be finessed in like Greece and while a treaty change is theoretically possible... Fico, Orban, Italian Fash Karen, etc.
But, as with other countries, they could be brought closer to Europe over time, with EU help to deal with the corruption and the poverty, until they did meet the accession criteria.
But isn't the main source of corruption diversion of EU funds?
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
Wouldn't they need to go through an "accession period" just as the likes of Poland and Romania had to before becoming full members?
The current proposal simply says that they would join 1 Jan 2027.
Given Poland's reaction to dropping tariffs for Ukraine agricultural products, this seems ambitious.
Greens plan to punish male members who correct women
Men who correct women could face disciplinary action under plans being considered by the Green Party.
Party bosses are considering a proposal to broaden the Greens’ definition of misogyny to the point that “any disagreement” between the sexes could lead to the man facing a sanction.
A proposal is not a plan. As the Daily Tel should know, being a serious newspaper and all.
Stop mansplaining, Carnyx.
Sorry, had no idea re williamglenn. Apologies as due.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
Unlike Ireland, they have some pretty capable armed forces. The calculation is more to make the effort if invading them not worth it, I think ? As have sufficient teeth to destroy any small scale efforts; Ireland doesn't even have that.
Ireland has a bloody great ocean which serves it in the office of a wall, or as a moat defensive to a house, against the envy of less happier lands.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Being in the EEA does not mean being a rule taker.
EFTA members are fully involved in the development of all EU regulation that applies to them up to the final vote. And if they don’t agree with the final regulation then they have a veto on accepting it. Which is more than any full EU member has.
And only just over a quarter of EU legislation applies to EFTA members.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
Greens plan to punish male members who correct women
Men who correct women could face disciplinary action under plans being considered by the Green Party.
Party bosses are considering a proposal to broaden the Greens’ definition of misogyny to the point that “any disagreement” between the sexes could lead to the man facing a sanction.
In New Zealand (which has PR), the Greens sit at a permanent 10% and their core voter is 20-50 year old women with mental health issues.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
Absolutely. We could get 5 times the number of Ajax apcs we currently have on order.
I hadn't realised that Switzerland holds referendums on these deals.
Switzerland will no longer buy 36 F-35As after its claim that Bern would pay a fixed price for the contract was rejected by Washington. It will now buy fewer aircraft, but within the 6 billion Swiss Franc framework allocated. They have not yet said how many they will purchase. https://x.com/Rotorfocus/status/1999491624293011490
"The Federal Council and the Parliament had approved the purchase at a cost of 6 billion CHF."
Brexit could well be an issue but a bigger one may simply be economic reality. Back in 2004 the UK looked much more prosperous than Poland. Now? Not so much. That's certainly the feeling I got from speaking to a Pole last year.
What would be interesting is some kind of comparison with other European countries Poles have migrated to such as France and Germany.
I wonder what the factors are in Poland’s high growth? Perhaps it’s to do with greater economic integration with their neighbours through some sort of free trade area.
Is this not in phases?
The early years were initial rebound from communism. Then influx of especially German companies after lower cost manufacture. Then continued growth sustained by heavy EU investment in infrastructure.
A rough Google AI estimate of EU institutional investment in Poland is 12 billion Euro per annum over the period 2004 to 2023. On a GDP growing from 250 to 800 billion Euro over the period, that is a major underpinning.
One reason that a chunk of German politicians are quite keen on integrating Ukraine into the EU system is that that EU investment in Ukraine as it comes up to speed will provide a huge opportunity for German companies. Much as the development of Poland (and other Eastern European countries) did.
Pre war, there was massive investment going on - remember the dislocations in apparently Western European products, due to components from Ukraine not being there anymore?
Ukraine's integration into Europe would be if huge benefit, both economically to both parties, and for the security of both.
It would need a treaty change to get them in due to their mind-bending levels of corruption and poverty that are a million verst (genitive plural, don't fuck it up) from the accession criteria. They couldn't be finessed in like Greece and while a treaty change is theoretically possible... Fico, Orban, Italian Fash Karen, etc.
The irony of the most corrupt government in the EU seeking to block any progress with Ukraine's prospective membership isn't lost on me.
Postwar, there will be a new government, and there is certainly the appetite for both reform and EU membership. It was, after all, the latter which motivated mad Vlad's land grab and attempted decapitation of Ukraine's leadership.
There is also a stridently anti-EU strand of Ukro-nationalism which Z Man
I thought it was the Russians who paint "Z" on their vehicles??
I hadn't realised that Switzerland holds referendums on these deals.
Switzerland will no longer buy 36 F-35As after its claim that Bern would pay a fixed price for the contract was rejected by Washington. It will now buy fewer aircraft, but within the 6 billion Swiss Franc framework allocated. They have not yet said how many they will purchase. https://x.com/Rotorfocus/status/1999491624293011490
"The Federal Council and the Parliament had approved the purchase at a cost of 6 billion CHF."
Of interest is the fact that earlier in the F35 program, when costs were getting out of control, the US government said that it would reduce the buy and eliminate capabilities from the plane if the price didn't come back down.
After lots of whining of "not fair" from LockMart and chums, the project got better.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
If we learnt anything in the 20th century it is that the best way to successfully defend yourself is to keep the actual fight as far away from you as possible.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
Absolutely. We could get 5 times the number of Ajax apcs we currently have on order.
Or buy 1,000 Archer artillery systems. And 2.5 million shells to fire from them.
Genuine question: how widespread is this sort of thing across parties?
A Reform UK councillor has been accused of being “completely absent” after it was revealed he has sent just two emails and attended one council meeting since beginning his job in May.
Northumberland County Councillor Shaun Knowles has been accused of “wasting taxpayer money” by taking £9,340 of his salary since taking office six months ago.
Despite receiving 948 emails from May to mid November - a Freedom of Information request revealed he has only sent two messages from his official address.
Conservative councillor Wayne Daley, who sent the request, said he has tried to contact Mr Knowles numerous times after being “inundated” by his constituents in Cramlington South West saying he does not respond.
(Clearly, the language about "job" and "salary" is misplaced.) (I love that we have a place called Cramlington. It sounds like something out of a 1960s Dick Emery film or The Goodies.)
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
By the time we are defending our own islands, it will cost a shit tonne more money- see 1940. The front line for the defence against Russia is, right now, in the Donbas. 20 billion will be cheap at half the price.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
The Swiss defence strategy is simply making it absolute hell for anyone who tries to attack. They will get you in the mountains and the passes. They are the country version of a porcupine.
They also know where any invaders money is which is quite a neat tactic too.
Unless of course the invasion happens on a weekend.
I can imagine them asking for Vignettes for the tanks at the border. It's all they seem to do.
Genuine question: how widespread is this sort of thing across parties?
A Reform UK councillor has been accused of being “completely absent” after it was revealed he has sent just two emails and attended one council meeting since beginning his job in May.
Northumberland County Councillor Shaun Knowles has been accused of “wasting taxpayer money” by taking £9,340 of his salary since taking office six months ago.
Despite receiving 948 emails from May to mid November - a Freedom of Information request revealed he has only sent two messages from his official address.
Conservative councillor Wayne Daley, who sent the request, said he has tried to contact Mr Knowles numerous times after being “inundated” by his constituents in Cramlington South West saying he does not respond.
(Clearly, the language about "job" and "salary" is misplaced.) (I love that we have a place called Cramlington. It sounds like something out of a 1960s Dick Emery film or The Goodies.)
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
Unlike Ireland, they have some pretty capable armed forces. The calculation is more to make the effort if invading them not worth it, I think ? As have sufficient teeth to destroy any small scale efforts; Ireland doesn't even have that.
Ireland has a bloody great ocean which serves it in the office of a wall, or as a moat defensive to a house, against the envy of less happier lands.
Its West coast is an open door to cross-Atlantic drug smugglers.
Greens plan to punish male members who correct women
Men who correct women could face disciplinary action under plans being considered by the Green Party.
Party bosses are considering a proposal to broaden the Greens’ definition of misogyny to the point that “any disagreement” between the sexes could lead to the man facing a sanction.
In New Zealand (which has PR), the Greens sit at a permanent 10% and their core voter is 20-50 year old women with mental health issues.
I fully expect the UK Greens to go the same way.
I hope not. but it is possible.
The idea that there could be enough middle aged women with mental health issues to stock a political party is a bit of a worry.
I’m reasonably au fait with the old and new green member demographic. They do not reflect the NZ 10%. So if they reflect our voters we are not there yet.
Nevertheless, I think I’d be pretty comfortable representing the NZ 10%’s interests as I’d be expecting a thoughtful and probably kind approach to policy.
Gotta be better than working for the 1%. For sure.
Genuine question: how widespread is this sort of thing across parties?
A Reform UK councillor has been accused of being “completely absent” after it was revealed he has sent just two emails and attended one council meeting since beginning his job in May.
Northumberland County Councillor Shaun Knowles has been accused of “wasting taxpayer money” by taking £9,340 of his salary since taking office six months ago.
Despite receiving 948 emails from May to mid November - a Freedom of Information request revealed he has only sent two messages from his official address.
Conservative councillor Wayne Daley, who sent the request, said he has tried to contact Mr Knowles numerous times after being “inundated” by his constituents in Cramlington South West saying he does not respond.
(Clearly, the language about "job" and "salary" is misplaced.) (I love that we have a place called Cramlington. It sounds like something out of a 1960s Dick Emery film or The Goodies.)
Simple question, complex answer.
A lot depends on whether you have a two-tier structure in local Government or a Unitary and whether you have a division or Ward with a single councillor or as many as three and again whether the councillors were from the same Party or group or from different parties.
When I worked in local Government in a two-tier structure, I would say the most active Councillors were the "twin hatters" - those who served on both the County and District/Borough Councils. They would take an active interest in anything being proposed in their area and would often bring extensive local knowledge and contacts to the decision making process.
In Newham, in my three member Ward, I find one of the three Councillors deals with most of the case work in terms of drafting responses and getting involved - another is the Chair of Planning while the third, well, I'm not quite sure what she does. Perhaps the two of them split the work geographically across what is a small Ward but still has an electorate of over 11,000 people.
The other point is, as a Councillor, you have access to support within the Council from the central departments who are there to answer your questions and respond to issues raised and correspondence from Councillors always got high priority.
The electorate will ultimately judge the effectiveness or otherwise of the elected Member and while I do concede it can take a while for a new Councillor to get up to speed with everything, it's been seven months and the conduct of this Councillor certainly doesn't seem good.
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
Across a County Council, £1 million is back of the sofa money. Leicestershire has a budget of around £615 million so we aren't talking about swingeing savings by any stretch.
I'd cut back on hiring consultants to look for savings.....
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
If we learnt anything in the 20th century it is that the best way to successfully defend yourself is to keep the actual fight as far away from you as possible.
Are you seriously suggesting that bunging the EU £20bn of our money to give to a dedence fund where British companies cannot bid, is in any way defensible?
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
Across a County Council, £1 million is back of the sofa money. Leicestershire has a budget of around £615 million so we aren't talking about swingeing savings by any stretch.
I'd cut back on hiring consultants to look for savings.....
Yes. Also the £1 million saving is probably something like closing an art centre. It might be a nice to have but it will be a nice you will no longer have. While the consultants are just money down the drain. They don't benefit anyone.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
If we learnt anything in the 20th century it is that the best way to successfully defend yourself is to keep the actual fight as far away from you as possible.
Are you seriously suggesting that bunging the EU £20bn of our money to give to a dedence fund where British companies cannot bid, is in any way defensible?
That's not what I suggested? It's a guessed value of defence we currently provide to EU countries based on deployments and equipment. Not actual money into any fund.
If you want our help training troops in Poland and being stationed on the continent then that has a cost to the taxpayer, it should be repaid in other non-monetary benefits such as trade. As I said, the government needs to wise up and treat the relationship with the EU as transactional rather than mutually beneficial as they currently do. Cynical or not it's what they do to us.
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
If we learnt anything in the 20th century it is that the best way to successfully defend yourself is to keep the actual fight as far away from you as possible.
Are you seriously suggesting that bunging the EU £20bn of our money to give to a dedence fund where British companies cannot bid, is in any way defensible?
@rcs1000 or @StillWaters is global entry worth the hassle, I've got about 8-10 trips to LA per year for the foreseeable future and was wondering if I should bother with the interviews etc...
Also, for all the talk about US border security under Trump being crazy I had a fast and professional experience yesterday. Asked for my passport, scanned it, scanned my fingerprints and took my picture and she let me through. Didn't ask about my reservation or plans or anything really. This is on a fresh esta as well because I haven't been to the US for a while. Compared to last time under Biden it was far, far smoother. That time I got 20 questions, had to show evidence I had a return journey and I had to source a copy of the wedding invitation for the wedding I was attending.
I think so - about 15 minutes but the key benefit is that you don’t get stuck behind a flight from china in immigration if your plane is delayed
Yeah that does sound useful, I'll have to look into it in the new year. How long does an application usually take?
The application is fast but you then need to get an appointment for an in person interview either at the us embassy (not many) or at a US airport (PITA to line up with travel plans). That took me about an hour - the appointment time is the time you join the queue not the time of the appointment so plan accordingly
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
If we learnt anything in the 20th century it is that the best way to successfully defend yourself is to keep the actual fight as far away from you as possible.
Are you seriously suggesting that bunging the EU £20bn of our money to give to a dedence fund where British companies cannot bid, is in any way defensible?
That's not what I suggested? It's a guessed value of defence we currently provide to EU countries based on deployments and equipment. Not actual money into any fund.
If you want our help training troops in Poland and being stationed on the continent then that has a cost to the taxpayer, it should be repaid in other non-monetary benefits such as trade. As I said, the government needs to wise up and treat the relationship with the EU as transactional rather than mutually beneficial as they currently do. Cynical or not it's what they do to us.
Indeed but the same people who get bent out of shape about Trump and co taking this approach drink,the EU Kool Aid.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
If we learnt anything in the 20th century it is that the best way to successfully defend yourself is to keep the actual fight as far away from you as possible.
Are you seriously suggesting that bunging the EU £20bn of our money to give to a dedence fund where British companies cannot bid, is in any way defensible?
That's not what I suggested? It's a guessed value of defence we currently provide to EU countries based on deployments and equipment. Not actual money into any fund.
If you want our help training troops in Poland and being stationed on the continent then that has a cost to the taxpayer, it should be repaid in other non-monetary benefits such as trade. As I said, the government needs to wise up and treat the relationship with the EU as transactional rather than mutually beneficial as they currently do. Cynical or not it's what they do to us.
I wasn't targeting my indignance at you - I have not been keeping up with events and quite frankly the above scenario wouldn't surprise me a bit if it were official policy.
Of course, you're right - as I've been saying for some time, our relationship with the EU should be transactional and operated on thr basis of clarity and mutual respect.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
Wouldn't they need to go through an "accession period" just as the likes of Poland and Romania had to before becoming full members?
The current proposal simply says that they would join 1 Jan 2027.
In an ideal world.
But the EU is not waiving its rules. This was from a September statement: ..Once Member States agree, the negotiation chapters, which are part of broader thematic clusters, can be opened. Ukraine is expected to continue its reform efforts, align with EU legislation and strengthen its institutional and administrative capacity, guided by the benchmarks to be set by the Member States. Cluster 1 on the fundamentals – such as the rule of law, fundamental rights and functioning democratic institutions – is always the first to be opened and the last to be closed..
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
If we learnt anything in the 20th century it is that the best way to successfully defend yourself is to keep the actual fight as far away from you as possible.
Are you seriously suggesting that bunging the EU £20bn of our money to give to a dedence fund where British companies cannot bid, is in any way defensible?
That's not what I suggested? It's a guessed value of defence we currently provide to EU countries based on deployments and equipment. Not actual money into any fund.
If you want our help training troops in Poland and being stationed on the continent then that has a cost to the taxpayer, it should be repaid in other non-monetary benefits such as trade. As I said, the government needs to wise up and treat the relationship with the EU as transactional rather than mutually beneficial as they currently do. Cynical or not it's what they do to us.
I wasn't targeting my indignance at you - I have not been keeping up with events and quite frankly the above scenario wouldn't surprise me a bit if it were official policy.
Of course, you're right - as I've been saying for some time, our relationship with the EU should be transactional and operated on thr basis of clarity and mutual respect.
A classic of the genre was the Sombrero Island, Anguilla/Beal comedy
Andy Beal was an American billionaire who wanted to do cheap space launch (yes, indeed). He started building rockets and built a test stand in Texas that SpaceX use.
He realised early on, that the existing American launch companies were trying to shut him out. So he started negotiating with Anguilla to put a launch site on Sombrero Island.
The French got upset at the idea of a cheap competitor to Ariane and asked the UK Foreigner* Office to do something. The FO used UK tax payer money to bribe the Anguilla government to deny Beal permits and kill the venture.
The whole thing came out and created enormous bad blood in Anguilla towards the British Government.
The French shrugged and denied everything. Then never gave us anything in return for our help.
What should have happened is
1) Got a huge pile of cash off the French, to pay for the whole thing 2) Made the offer via French citizens (or convincingly French sounding people) to the Anguilla government. 3) Got a counter offer from Beal 4) Decided who to betray and then make sure someone else got the blame.
@rcs1000 or @StillWaters is global entry worth the hassle, I've got about 8-10 trips to LA per year for the foreseeable future and was wondering if I should bother with the interviews etc...
Also, for all the talk about US border security under Trump being crazy I had a fast and professional experience yesterday. Asked for my passport, scanned it, scanned my fingerprints and took my picture and she let me through. Didn't ask about my reservation or plans or anything really. This is on a fresh esta as well because I haven't been to the US for a while. Compared to last time under Biden it was far, far smoother. That time I got 20 questions, had to show evidence I had a return journey and I had to source a copy of the wedding invitation for the wedding I was attending.
I think so - about 15 minutes but the key benefit is that you don’t get stuck behind a flight from china in immigration if your plane is delayed
Yeah that does sound useful, I'll have to look into it in the new year. How long does an application usually take?
The application is fast but you then need to get an appointment for an in person interview either at the us embassy (not many) or at a US airport (PITA to line up with travel plans). That took me about an hour - the appointment time is the time you join the queue not the time of the appointment so plan accordingly
If you travel to the US more than twice a year, then you should get Global Entry. It also gives you access to the TSA Pre lines at security in the US, which a massive benefit.
As @StillWaters points out, the only major hassle is getting an appointment once you are provisionally approved.
There are two ways around this.
Firstly, there are a number of US airports where you can just walk up and get an interview during the immigration process. You'll probably end up waiting 15 to 45 minutes, but that's a one off hassle.
Secondly, there's a website that charges about $20, and which spams the US government websites looking for available appointments, and it works well, because when people inevitable cancel and rearrange their appointments, you get an alert saying "US Embassy London, Global Entry appointment 315pm this afternoon", and then you need to be extremely quick or someone else gets it.
With my kids, we did the first on a flight into Houston. And I did the second for my wife.
Greens plan to punish male members who correct women
Men who correct women could face disciplinary action under plans being considered by the Green Party.
Party bosses are considering a proposal to broaden the Greens’ definition of misogyny to the point that “any disagreement” between the sexes could lead to the man facing a sanction.
In New Zealand (which has PR), the Greens sit at a permanent 10% and their core voter is 20-50 year old women with mental health issues.
I fully expect the UK Greens to go the same way.
When you say "women", can you be a bit more specific please.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
Unlike Ireland, they have some pretty capable armed forces. The calculation is more to make the effort if invading them not worth it, I think ? As have sufficient teeth to destroy any small scale efforts; Ireland doesn't even have that.
Ireland has a bloody great ocean which serves it in the office of a wall, or as a moat defensive to a house, against the envy of less happier lands.
That's not what they said when they asked France to provide air defence recently.
If I may toss a cherry into the trifle - if individual countries all start tooling up to the max to defend themselves against allcomers that's going to lead to nothing good at all.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
If we learnt anything in the 20th century it is that the best way to successfully defend yourself is to keep the actual fight as far away from you as possible.
Are you seriously suggesting that bunging the EU £20bn of our money to give to a dedence fund where British companies cannot bid, is in any way defensible?
That's not what I suggested? It's a guessed value of defence we currently provide to EU countries based on deployments and equipment. Not actual money into any fund.
If you want our help training troops in Poland and being stationed on the continent then that has a cost to the taxpayer, it should be repaid in other non-monetary benefits such as trade. As I said, the government needs to wise up and treat the relationship with the EU as transactional rather than mutually beneficial as they currently do. Cynical or not it's what they do to us.
Rather than cynical, it would be pretty dumb to be having any such argument over defence right now.
Compare what Poland is now spending on their armed forces, versus what we are. They are providing a highly valuable service in creating a solid barrier against Russia.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
Unlike Ireland, they have some pretty capable armed forces. The calculation is more to make the effort if invading them not worth it, I think ? As have sufficient teeth to destroy any small scale efforts; Ireland doesn't even have that.
Ireland has a bloody great ocean which serves it in the office of a wall, or as a moat defensive to a house, against the envy of less happier lands.
That's not what they said when they asked France to provide air defence recently.
I bet the Kremlin have a plan to invade Ireland. It'd be over in a day. They'd be fighting the residual rabble for a thousand years though and losing. It's a bit like the Swiss mentioned above - in the Swiss case their geography saves them. For Ireland it's just their sheer bloody-mindedness.
Russia wants to reset Finland's NATO membership - Lavrov addressed his words directly to Finland’s FM Valtonen.
Russia’s demands for "security" apply not only to Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe and the NATO defence alliance, as well as to Finland and Sweden, by seeking to reset Finland's and Sweden's recent NATO memberships and demanding a return to the situation of 1997. https://x.com/SariArhoHavren/status/1999858063554027709
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
Reform financial illiteracy vs BBC financial illiteracy? Fight!
I assume recurring savings, but I suspect "savings" are probably the elimination of lower priority services rather than pure waste. Whereas the consultants probably are pure waste. Also the supposed savings are potential and may not happen while the consultants are upfront cost.
Russia wants to reset Finland's NATO membership - Lavrov addressed his words directly to Finland’s FM Valtonen.
Russia’s demands for "security" apply not only to Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe and the NATO defence alliance, as well as to Finland and Sweden, by seeking to reset Finland's and Sweden's recent NATO memberships and demanding a return to the situation of 1997.
Russia wants to reset Finland's NATO membership - Lavrov addressed his words directly to Finland’s FM Valtonen.
Russia’s demands for "security" apply not only to Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe and the NATO defence alliance, as well as to Finland and Sweden, by seeking to reset Finland's and Sweden's recent NATO memberships and demanding a return to the situation of 1997.
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
Reform financial illiteracy vs BBC financial illiteracy? Fight!
I assume recurring savings, but I suspect "savings" are probably the elimination of lower priority services rather than pure waste. Whereas the consultants probably are pure waste. Also the supposed savings are potential and may not happen while the consultants are upfront cost.
Sure, but the typical mutiple is 25x for one year vs permanent savings. So £25m vs £1.4m. In theory.
Councils have statutory duties, and other stuff. Cutting the other stuff is easy. Delivering the statutory stuff more efficiently is hard. Both are probably swamped by national funding trends. And so, local democracy is rather limited in effect.
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
Reform financial illiteracy vs BBC financial illiteracy? Fight!
I assume recurring savings, but I suspect "savings" are probably the elimination of lower priority services rather than pure waste. Whereas the consultants probably are pure waste. Also the supposed savings are potential and may not happen while the consultants are upfront cost.
Sure, but the typical mutiple is 25x for one year vs permanent savings. So £25m vs £1.4m. In theory.
Councils have statutory duties, and other stuff. Cutting the other stuff is easy. Delivering the statutory stuff more efficiently is hard. Both are probably swamped by national funding trends. And so, local democracy is rather limited in effect.
25 years seems an excessively long payback period.
Russia wants to reset Finland's NATO membership - Lavrov addressed his words directly to Finland’s FM Valtonen.
Russia’s demands for "security" apply not only to Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe and the NATO defence alliance, as well as to Finland and Sweden, by seeking to reset Finland's and Sweden's recent NATO memberships and demanding a return to the situation of 1997.
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong. It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
I don't think it's in the UK's interest to be a rule taker. It's probably better to rejoin than be in the EEA or EFTA, there are too many disadvantages to being a rule taker when fundamentally hostile countries like France are in charge of the rules. The latest skirmish over the defence fund and the French asking for £6bn per year to bid on £150bn if contracts shows that they're not interested in friendly cooperation so being a rule taker is a huge risk. There's nothing stopping them from simply singling out the UK when drawing up new regulations that put us at a disadvantage and as EEA members we just have to live with it.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
Why on earth would we want to give £20bn into a European defence fund? Piss off. That money should be used to defend our own Islands.
If we learnt anything in the 20th century it is that the best way to successfully defend yourself is to keep the actual fight as far away from you as possible.
Are you seriously suggesting that bunging the EU £20bn of our money to give to a dedence fund where British companies cannot bid, is in any way defensible?
That's not what I suggested? It's a guessed value of defence we currently provide to EU countries based on deployments and equipment. Not actual money into any fund.
If you want our help training troops in Poland and being stationed on the continent then that has a cost to the taxpayer, it should be repaid in other non-monetary benefits such as trade. As I said, the government needs to wise up and treat the relationship with the EU as transactional rather than mutually beneficial as they currently do. Cynical or not it's what they do to us.
I wasn't targeting my indignance at you - I have not been keeping up with events and quite frankly the above scenario wouldn't surprise me a bit if it were official policy.
Of course, you're right - as I've been saying for some time, our relationship with the EU should be transactional and operated on thr basis of clarity and mutual respect.
A classic of the genre was the Sombrero Island, Anguilla/Beal comedy
Andy Beal was an American billionaire who wanted to do cheap space launch (yes, indeed). He started building rockets and built a test stand in Texas that SpaceX use.
He realised early on, that the existing American launch companies were trying to shut him out. So he started negotiating with Anguilla to put a launch site on Sombrero Island.
The French got upset at the idea of a cheap competitor to Ariane and asked the UK Foreigner* Office to do something. The FO used UK tax payer money to bribe the Anguilla government to deny Beal permits and kill the venture.
The whole thing came out and created enormous bad blood in Anguilla towards the British Government.
The French shrugged and denied everything. Then never gave us anything in return for our help.
What should have happened is
1) Got a huge pile of cash off the French, to pay for the whole thing 2) Made the offer via French citizens (or convincingly French sounding people) to the Anguilla government. 3) Got a counter offer from Beal 4) Decided who to betray and then make sure someone else got the blame.
*Which represents the interests of foreigners
The Foreign Office is disgusting. Sack the ghastly lot.
Russia wants to reset Finland's NATO membership - Lavrov addressed his words directly to Finland’s FM Valtonen.
Russia’s demands for "security" apply not only to Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe and the NATO defence alliance, as well as to Finland and Sweden, by seeking to reset Finland's and Sweden's recent NATO memberships and demanding a return to the situation of 1997.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
Unlike Ireland, they have some pretty capable armed forces. The calculation is more to make the effort if invading them not worth it, I think ? As have sufficient teeth to destroy any small scale efforts; Ireland doesn't even have that.
Ireland has a bloody great ocean which serves it in the office of a wall, or as a moat defensive to a house, against the envy of less happier lands.
Its West coast is an open door to cross-Atlantic drug smugglers.
Russia wants to reset Finland's NATO membership - Lavrov addressed his words directly to Finland’s FM Valtonen.
Russia’s demands for "security" apply not only to Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe and the NATO defence alliance, as well as to Finland and Sweden, by seeking to reset Finland's and Sweden's recent NATO memberships and demanding a return to the situation of 1997.
Brexit could well be an issue but a bigger one may simply be economic reality. Back in 2004 the UK looked much more prosperous than Poland. Now? Not so much. That's certainly the feeling I got from speaking to a Pole last year.
What would be interesting is some kind of comparison with other European countries Poles have migrated to such as France and Germany.
I wonder what the factors are in Poland’s high growth? Perhaps it’s to do with greater economic integration with their neighbours through some sort of free trade area.
That's clearly not the full story because they are doing dramatically better than neighbours like the Czech Republic.
Czechia, of course, famously left a larger political and economic union before later joining the EU. Perhaps they would’ve done better if not for that.
No it didn't.
It was Slovakia that left, not Czechia. Czechia accepted a fait accompli after Slovakia declared independence.
I always assumed the Swiss defence strategy remained “hide behind some bigger boys”. Bit like Ireland, for whom it also makes sense.
Unlike Ireland, they have some pretty capable armed forces. The calculation is more to make the effort if invading them not worth it, I think ? As have sufficient teeth to destroy any small scale efforts; Ireland doesn't even have that.
Ireland has a bloody great ocean which serves it in the office of a wall, or as a moat defensive to a house, against the envy of less happier lands.
Its West coast is an open door to cross-Atlantic drug smugglers.
Russia wants to reset Finland's NATO membership - Lavrov addressed his words directly to Finland’s FM Valtonen.
Russia’s demands for "security" apply not only to Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe and the NATO defence alliance, as well as to Finland and Sweden, by seeking to reset Finland's and Sweden's recent NATO memberships and demanding a return to the situation of 1997.
Russia wants to reset Finland's NATO membership - Lavrov addressed his words directly to Finland’s FM Valtonen.
Russia’s demands for "security" apply not only to Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe and the NATO defence alliance, as well as to Finland and Sweden, by seeking to reset Finland's and Sweden's recent NATO memberships and demanding a return to the situation of 1997.
So much to unpack in this Daily Mail opinion piece
The great Polish exodus: The arrival of 100,000s of Poles changed the face of Britain, but now they're returning home in droves for a better life in their low-tax, booming homeland. Could there be a more damning indictment of our decline?
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
Reform financial illiteracy vs BBC financial illiteracy? Fight!
I assume recurring savings, but I suspect "savings" are probably the elimination of lower priority services rather than pure waste. Whereas the consultants probably are pure waste. Also the supposed savings are potential and may not happen while the consultants are upfront cost.
Sure, but the typical mutiple is 25x for one year vs permanent savings. So £25m vs £1.4m. In theory.
Councils have statutory duties, and other stuff. Cutting the other stuff is easy. Delivering the statutory stuff more efficiently is hard. Both are probably swamped by national funding trends. And so, local democracy is rather limited in effect.
25 years seems an excessively long payback period.
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
Over the last 16 years Leics CC has delivered £290 million in savings/cuts, so there are ever diminishing returns from further rounds of savings. Without Council tax rises the CC is looking at a deficit of £106 million in 4 years time, so these supposed £1 million in annual savings would only reduce it trivially.
So I am expecting the 5% maximum council tax increase permitted.
So much to unpack in this Daily Mail opinion piece
The great Polish exodus: The arrival of 100,000s of Poles changed the face of Britain, but now they're returning home in droves for a better life in their low-tax, booming homeland. Could there be a more damning indictment of our decline?
This was my favourite section, Brexiteers just cannot admit the truth, I mean I wonder what caused the 'visa anxiety'? Was there some change?
'Visa anxiety' – the fear that they won't be able to work in Britain and visit Poland easily – is another often stated reason. 'The Poles are also more geared to family than we are,' says Jephcott, who is married to one.
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
Reform financial illiteracy vs BBC financial illiteracy? Fight!
I assume recurring savings, but I suspect "savings" are probably the elimination of lower priority services rather than pure waste. Whereas the consultants probably are pure waste. Also the supposed savings are potential and may not happen while the consultants are upfront cost.
Sure, but the typical mutiple is 25x for one year vs permanent savings. So £25m vs £1.4m. In theory.
Councils have statutory duties, and other stuff. Cutting the other stuff is easy. Delivering the statutory stuff more efficiently is hard. Both are probably swamped by national funding trends. And so, local democracy is rather limited in effect.
25 years seems an excessively long payback period.
Just an observation.
The payback is 1.4 years.
It's not an investment unless the service is the same or improved. It's a budgeting decision including a new cost item for consultants.
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
Reform financial illiteracy vs BBC financial illiteracy? Fight!
I assume recurring savings, but I suspect "savings" are probably the elimination of lower priority services rather than pure waste. Whereas the consultants probably are pure waste. Also the supposed savings are potential and may not happen while the consultants are upfront cost.
Sure, but the typical mutiple is 25x for one year vs permanent savings. So £25m vs £1.4m. In theory.
Councils have statutory duties, and other stuff. Cutting the other stuff is easy. Delivering the statutory stuff more efficiently is hard. Both are probably swamped by national funding trends. And so, local democracy is rather limited in effect.
25 years seems an excessively long payback period.
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
Reform financial illiteracy vs BBC financial illiteracy? Fight!
I assume recurring savings, but I suspect "savings" are probably the elimination of lower priority services rather than pure waste. Whereas the consultants probably are pure waste. Also the supposed savings are potential and may not happen while the consultants are upfront cost.
Sure, but the typical mutiple is 25x for one year vs permanent savings. So £25m vs £1.4m. In theory.
Councils have statutory duties, and other stuff. Cutting the other stuff is easy. Delivering the statutory stuff more efficiently is hard. Both are probably swamped by national funding trends. And so, local democracy is rather limited in effect.
25 years seems an excessively long payback period.
Russia wants to reset Finland's NATO membership - Lavrov addressed his words directly to Finland’s FM Valtonen.
Russia’s demands for "security" apply not only to Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe and the NATO defence alliance, as well as to Finland and Sweden, by seeking to reset Finland's and Sweden's recent NATO memberships and demanding a return to the situation of 1997.
The Reform led Council in Leicestershire brought in consultants at a cost of £1.4 million to find cost millions of pounds of cost savings. They have actually found £1 million of potential savings.
Reform financial illiteracy vs BBC financial illiteracy? Fight!
I assume recurring savings, but I suspect "savings" are probably the elimination of lower priority services rather than pure waste. Whereas the consultants probably are pure waste. Also the supposed savings are potential and may not happen while the consultants are upfront cost.
Sure, but the typical mutiple is 25x for one year vs permanent savings. So £25m vs £1.4m. In theory.
Councils have statutory duties, and other stuff. Cutting the other stuff is easy. Delivering the statutory stuff more efficiently is hard. Both are probably swamped by national funding trends. And so, local democracy is rather limited in effect.
25 years seems an excessively long payback period.
Just an observation.
8x is the more normal multiplier
I was working off the multiplier for capital vs income when it comes to, say, university endowments. Perhaps I'm wrong.
So much to unpack in this Daily Mail opinion piece
The great Polish exodus: The arrival of 100,000s of Poles changed the face of Britain, but now they're returning home in droves for a better life in their low-tax, booming homeland. Could there be a more damning indictment of our decline?
This was my favourite section, Brexiteers just cannot admit the truth, I mean I wonder what caused the 'visa anxiety'? Was there some change?
'Visa anxiety' – the fear that they won't be able to work in Britain and visit Poland easily – is another often stated reason. 'The Poles are also more geared to family than we are,' says Jephcott, who is married to one.
According to the DM the UK is simultaneously an unacceptably attractive magnet for foreigners and a dysfunctional hellscape no foreigner would want to have anything to do with.
Comments
Comprehensive approach to security: Federal Council launches consultation on Switzerland's security policy strategy
https://www.news.admin.ch/en/newnsb/BLkWfUbUsXtBFoSj-krgU
Also, for all the talk about US border security under Trump being crazy I had a fast and professional experience yesterday. Asked for my passport, scanned it, scanned my fingerprints and took my picture and she let me through. Didn't ask about my reservation or plans or anything really. This is on a fresh esta as well because I haven't been to the US for a while. Compared to last time under Biden it was far, far smoother. That time I got 20 questions, had to show evidence I had a return journey and I had to source a copy of the wedding invitation for the wedding I was attending.
They also know where any invaders money is which is quite a neat tactic too.
Did you know that they seriously considered having their own nukes, back on the 1950s and 60s?
Greens plan to punish male members who correct women
Men who correct women could face disciplinary action under plans being considered by the Green Party.
Party bosses are considering a proposal to broaden the Greens’ definition of misogyny to the point that “any disagreement” between the sexes could lead to the man facing a sanction.
The response would be Biblical. Unthinkable. For centuries people would tell each other of the fate of the tank crew…
As Dura Ace points out, it’s corrupt as fuck, poorer than any accession nation before it, and raises fundamental and not quickly answerable questions about freedom of movement, agricultural and regional development policy, and voting weight.
The case for its economic integration into a broader European common market, however, is very strong.
It would be in everyone’s best interests - including Britain’s - that it join an “outer European ring”; a reinvigorated EFTA.
The calculation is more to make the effort if invading them not worth it, I think ?
As have sufficient teeth to destroy any small scale efforts; Ireland doesn't even have that.
I fully expect the UK Greens to go the same way.
No, the solution is to make this work and get to grips that our relationship with the EU is now purely transactional. If we're putting £20bn of defence funding in to secure the European border against Russia then we need to extract £20bn worth of concessions on trade elsewhere. The EU has been working on this basis and I think it's probably about time our politicians got real and did it too.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68337795.amp
EFTA members are fully involved in the development of all EU regulation that applies to them up to the final vote. And if they don’t agree with the final regulation then they have a veto on accepting it. Which is more than any full EU member has.
And only just over a quarter of EU legislation applies to EFTA members.
Charlotte Church has ditched deoderant.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9zz71850jo
After lots of whining of "not fair" from LockMart and chums, the project got better.
Which would be "enough cannon to conquer Hell".
A Reform UK councillor has been accused of being “completely absent” after it was revealed he has sent just two emails and attended one council meeting since beginning his job in May.
Northumberland County Councillor Shaun Knowles has been accused of “wasting taxpayer money” by taking £9,340 of his salary since taking office six months ago.
Despite receiving 948 emails from May to mid November - a Freedom of Information request revealed he has only sent two messages from his official address.
Conservative councillor Wayne Daley, who sent the request, said he has tried to contact Mr Knowles numerous times after being “inundated” by his constituents in Cramlington South West saying he does not respond.
He said he and councillors on Cramlington Town Council have been “picking up every bit of constituency work” for him, and called on him to resign.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-uk-councillor-email-b2882569.html
(Clearly, the language about "job" and "salary" is misplaced.)
(I love that we have a place called Cramlington. It sounds like something out of a 1960s Dick Emery film or The Goodies.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1SXlEk32-o
I’m reasonably au fait with the old and new green member demographic. They do not reflect the NZ 10%. So if they reflect our voters we are not there yet.
Nevertheless,
I think I’d be pretty comfortable representing the NZ 10%’s interests as I’d be expecting a thoughtful and probably kind approach to policy.
Gotta be better than working for the 1%.
For sure.
A lot depends on whether you have a two-tier structure in local Government or a Unitary and whether you have a division or Ward with a single councillor or as many as three and again whether the councillors were from the same Party or group or from different parties.
When I worked in local Government in a two-tier structure, I would say the most active Councillors were the "twin hatters" - those who served on both the County and District/Borough Councils. They would take an active interest in anything being proposed in their area and would often bring extensive local knowledge and contacts to the decision making process.
In Newham, in my three member Ward, I find one of the three Councillors deals with most of the case work in terms of drafting responses and getting involved - another is the Chair of Planning while the third, well, I'm not quite sure what she does. Perhaps the two of them split the work geographically across what is a small Ward but still has an electorate of over 11,000 people.
The other point is, as a Councillor, you have access to support within the Council from the central departments who are there to answer your questions and respond to issues raised and correspondence from Councillors always got high priority.
The electorate will ultimately judge the effectiveness or otherwise of the elected Member and while I do concede it can take a while for a new Councillor to get up to speed with everything, it's been seven months and the conduct of this Councillor certainly doesn't seem good.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgdk3xrrw4o
I'd cut back on hiring consultants to look for savings.....
Reform financial illiteracy vs BBC financial illiteracy? Fight!
If you want our help training troops in Poland and being stationed on the continent then that has a cost to the taxpayer, it should be repaid in other non-monetary benefits such as trade. As I said, the government needs to wise up and treat the relationship with the EU as transactional rather than mutually beneficial as they currently do. Cynical or not it's what they do to us.
Of course, you're right - as I've been saying for some time, our relationship with the EU should be transactional and operated on thr basis of clarity and mutual respect.
But the EU is not waiving its rules. This was from a September statement:
..Once Member States agree, the negotiation chapters, which are part of broader thematic clusters, can be opened. Ukraine is expected to continue its reform efforts, align with EU legislation and strengthen its institutional and administrative capacity, guided by the benchmarks to be set by the Member States. Cluster 1 on the fundamentals – such as the rule of law, fundamental rights and functioning democratic institutions – is always the first to be opened and the last to be closed..
There's a more recent one this week, which says much the same:
https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/joint-statement-between-commissioner-marta-kos-and-deputy-prime-minister-ukraine-taras-kachka-2025-12-11_en
Andy Beal was an American billionaire who wanted to do cheap space launch (yes, indeed). He started building rockets and built a test stand in Texas that SpaceX use.
He realised early on, that the existing American launch companies were trying to shut him out. So he started negotiating with Anguilla to put a launch site on Sombrero Island.
The French got upset at the idea of a cheap competitor to Ariane and asked the UK Foreigner* Office to do something. The FO used UK tax payer money to bribe the Anguilla government to deny Beal permits and kill the venture.
The whole thing came out and created enormous bad blood in Anguilla towards the British Government.
The French shrugged and denied everything. Then never gave us anything in return for our help.
What should have happened is
1) Got a huge pile of cash off the French, to pay for the whole thing
2) Made the offer via French citizens (or convincingly French sounding people) to the Anguilla government.
3) Got a counter offer from Beal
4) Decided who to betray and then make sure someone else got the blame.
*Which represents the interests of foreigners
As @StillWaters points out, the only major hassle is getting an appointment once you are provisionally approved.
There are two ways around this.
Firstly, there are a number of US airports where you can just walk up and get an interview during the immigration process. You'll probably end up waiting 15 to 45 minutes, but that's a one off hassle.
Secondly, there's a website that charges about $20, and which spams the US government websites looking for available appointments, and it works well, because when people inevitable cancel and rearrange their appointments, you get an alert saying "US Embassy London, Global Entry appointment 315pm this afternoon", and then you need to be extremely quick or someone else gets it.
With my kids, we did the first on a flight into Houston. And I did the second for my wife.
Compare what Poland is now spending on their armed forces, versus what we are. They are providing a highly valuable service in creating a solid barrier against Russia.
Russia’s demands for "security" apply not only to Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe and the NATO defence alliance, as well as to Finland and Sweden, by seeking to reset Finland's and Sweden's recent NATO memberships and demanding a return to the situation of 1997.
https://x.com/SariArhoHavren/status/1999858063554027709
Russia wants to reset Finland's NATO membership - Lavrov addressed his words directly to Finland’s FM Valtonen.
Russia’s demands for "security" apply not only to Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe and the NATO defence alliance, as well as to Finland and Sweden, by seeking to reset Finland's and Sweden's recent NATO memberships and demanding a return to the situation of 1997.
https://x.com/SariArhoHavren/status/1999858063554027709
Councils have statutory duties, and other stuff. Cutting the other stuff is easy. Delivering the statutory stuff more efficiently is hard. Both are probably swamped by national funding trends. And so, local democracy is rather limited in effect.
Just an observation.
We can do it - once Russia resets Ukraine's borders to the situation in 1997.
It was Slovakia that left, not Czechia. Czechia accepted a fait accompli after Slovakia declared independence.
I mean, the Russians wouldn't stand a chance without their help.
The great Polish exodus: The arrival of 100,000s of Poles changed the face of Britain, but now they're returning home in droves for a better life in their low-tax, booming homeland. Could there be a more damning indictment of our decline?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15379789/Polish-exodus-arrival-Britain-tax.html
Over the last 16 years Leics CC has delivered £290 million in savings/cuts, so there are ever diminishing returns from further rounds of savings. Without Council tax rises the CC is looking at a deficit of £106 million in 4 years time, so these supposed £1 million in annual savings would only reduce it trivially.
So I am expecting the 5% maximum council tax increase permitted.
'Visa anxiety' – the fear that they won't be able to work in Britain and visit Poland easily – is another often stated reason. 'The Poles are also more geared to family than we are,' says Jephcott, who is married to one.