But in the great scheme of things this will not have been an expensive case. There were no witnesses called, discvovery would have been very limited, Bercow did not deny making the statement.
I have every confidence that the legal profession will have found a way to make it expensive.
Bercow has well wishers happy to part with cash to help her out ? That would be a short queue.
It only takes one wealthy backer. As it's now going to be settled it is unlikely we will ever know. But in the great scheme of things this will not have been an expensive case. There were no witnesses called, discvovery would have been very limited, Bercow did not deny making the statement. The only issue was whether the Tweet was libellous and the judge has not taken very long to decide that.
I thought damages are going to be decided at another hearing. In which we will know then?
Bercow said: "To say I'm surprised and disappointed by this is an understatement. However, I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies. I have accepted an earlier offer his lawyers made to settle this matter.
"Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users. Things can be held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intent them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation. On this, I have learned my own lesson the hard way."
But in the great scheme of things this will not have been an expensive case. There were no witnesses called, discvovery would have been very limited, Bercow did not deny making the statement.
I have every confidence that the legal profession will have found a way to make it expensive.
of course! But I doubt it will be ruinous. And I would be surprised if Bercow herself was forced to pay all of whatever settlement sum is agreed.
Reading between the lines it looks as if the framework of a deal was agreed before the ruling.
But in the great scheme of things this will not have been an expensive case. There were no witnesses called, discvovery would have been very limited, Bercow did not deny making the statement.
I have every confidence that the legal profession will have found a way to make it expensive.
Lawyers are his/her master's voice. I would be very surprised to learn that she had not been advised to settle.
Bercow has well wishers happy to part with cash to help her out ? That would be a short queue.
It only takes one wealthy backer. As it's now going to be settled it is unlikely we will ever know. But in the great scheme of things this will not have been an expensive case. There were no witnesses called, discvovery would have been very limited, Bercow did not deny making the statement. The only issue was whether the Tweet was libellous and the judge has not taken very long to decide that.
I thought damages are going to be decided at another hearing. In which we will know then?
Bercow said: "To say I'm surprised and disappointed by this is an understatement. However, I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies. I have accepted an earlier offer his lawyers made to settle this matter.
"Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users. Things can be held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intent them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation. On this, I have learned my own lesson the hard way."
Bercow has well wishers happy to part with cash to help her out ? That would be a short queue.
It only takes one wealthy backer. As it's now going to be settled it is unlikely we will ever know. But in the great scheme of things this will not have been an expensive case. There were no witnesses called, discvovery would have been very limited, Bercow did not deny making the statement. The only issue was whether the Tweet was libellous and the judge has not taken very long to decide that.
I thought damages are going to be decided at another hearing. In which we will know then?
Bercow said: "To say I'm surprised and disappointed by this is an understatement. However, I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies. I have accepted an earlier offer his lawyers made to settle this matter.
"Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users. Things can be held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intent them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation. On this, I have learned my own lesson the hard way."
I'm guessing that Bercow may want to accept the earlier offer but we have no idea if the offer is still open. Incidentally, I was impressed with the way Monbiot handled himself in this affair whereas Bercow has just confirmed her lack of class.
Bercow has well wishers happy to part with cash to help her out ? That would be a short queue.
It only takes one wealthy backer. As it's now going to be settled it is unlikely we will ever know. But in the great scheme of things this will not have been an expensive case. There were no witnesses called, discvovery would have been very limited, Bercow did not deny making the statement. The only issue was whether the Tweet was libellous and the judge has not taken very long to decide that.
I thought damages are going to be decided at another hearing. In which we will know then?
Bercow said: "To say I'm surprised and disappointed by this is an understatement. However, I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies. I have accepted an earlier offer his lawyers made to settle this matter.
"Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users. Things can be held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intent them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation. On this, I have learned my own lesson the hard way."
McAlpine's lawyers have comfirmed she has now accepted an offer to settle that was made earlier this year.
Andrew Reid of RMPI Solicitors said: "The apologies previously received from Mrs Bercow did not concede that her tweet was defamatory. Clearly she must now accept this fact.
"The failure of Mrs Bercow to admit that her tweet was defamatory caused considerable unnecessary pain and suffering to Lord McAlpine and his family over the past six months.
"With knowledge of the judgment, I am pleased to be able to say that Mrs Bercow has finally seen sense and has accepted an offer of settlement, which Lord McAlpine made back in January.
This is pretty devastating to the rightwing Welfare anecdotalists:
@reddeviljp People who end up snitching on their neighbours for benefit fraud are usually wrong. Church report explains. pic.twitter.com/dCcD2SS8wU
It's a shame that cannot be cut and pasted. I wonder why the government - which so loves a welfare statistic, of course - does not share these ones with us. *InnocentFace*
Bercow should have listened to Mark Twain when he said:
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt
Indeed. As well as being narcissistic, vacuous and dim, she seems desperately naive. What other construction than libel did she imagine could be placed on that nasty little remark? Did she think she was being archly clever, or something?
I hope she gets seriously financially clobbered. Her old man's a ghastly little poison dwarf too and he'll end up absorbing part of the hit.
The most obvious conclusion is that she thought that the programme was going to accurately name McAlpine, and that the tweet therefore wouldn't be libellous because had that been the case, it would have been true. It was an almighty punt on her part, on the accuracy of both her guesswork and the journalists' investigation.
"Crime requires more than a predisposition to offend. It will flourish when we make it easy and shrivel when we make it hard."
Except he seems to have missed the coming of mobile phones, tablets and iPads. So if his idea is correct then crime should have gone up or simply switched from stealing car stereos to stealing mobile phones.
This is pretty devastating to the rightwing Welfare anecdotalists:
@reddeviljp People who end up snitching on their neighbours for benefit fraud are usually wrong. Church report explains. pic.twitter.com/dCcD2SS8wU
It's a shame that cannot be cut and pasted. I wonder why the government - which so loves a welfare statistic, of course - does not share these ones with us. *InnocentFace*
"Crime requires more than a predisposition to offend. It will flourish when we make it easy and shrivel when we make it hard."
Except he seems to have missed the coming of mobile phones, tablets and iPads. So if his idea is correct then crime should have gone up or simply switched from stealing car stereos to stealing mobile phones. It did.
If Scotland becomes independent they want a separate coronation in Scotland. Credit to Sturgeon for (earlier) dismissing such a thing.
Should Scotland become independent again then I'd certainly favour a Scottish coronation. Before the 1707 Act of Union the last Scottish monarch to be crowned was Charles II in 1651 having succeeded his father as king in 1649 following the regicide.
Silly Sally's been found guilty of libel then? I guess that means the attention seeker will be appearing on out TV screens even more as she attempts to find the funds to pay Lord M's damages?
"Crime requires more than a predisposition to offend. It will flourish when we make it easy and shrivel when we make it hard."
Except he seems to have missed the coming of mobile phones, tablets and iPads. So if his idea is correct then crime should have gone up or simply switched from stealing car stereos to stealing mobile phones.
I know it did. I'm saying his article was nonsense because he's saying crime went down because it became harder to steal stuff. It didn't get harder it got easier because of mobile phones, tablets etc.
If Scotland becomes independent they want a separate coronation in Scotland. Credit to Sturgeon for (earlier) dismissing such a thing.
Should Scotland become independent again then I'd certainly favour a Scottish coronation. Before the 1707 Act of Union the last Scottish monarch to be crowned was Charles II in 1651 having succeeded his father as king in 1649 following the regicide.
If Scotland becomes independent they want a separate coronation in Scotland. Credit to Sturgeon for (earlier) dismissing such a thing.
Should Scotland become independent again then I'd certainly favour a Scottish coronation. Before the 1707 Act of Union the last Scottish monarch to be crowned was Charles II in 1651 having succeeded his father as king in 1649 following the regicide.
Has Scotland ever had a King Jack before?
No but you should surely be Mistress of the Robes should it come to pass !!
Bercow had challenged McAlpine’s claim insisting her tweet was part of a widely-recognised pattern of being an attention-seeking cretin who degrades the office of Speaker of the House of Commons almost as much as her ghastly little husband.
Bercow had challenged McAlpine’s claim insisting her tweet was part of a widely-recognised pattern of being an attention-seeking cretin who degrades the office of Speaker of the House of Commons almost as much as her ghastly little husband.
Bercow had challenged McAlpine’s claim insisting her tweet was part of a widely-recognised pattern of being an attention-seeking cretin who degrades the office of Speaker of the House of Commons almost as much as her ghastly little husband.
Bercow had challenged McAlpine’s claim insisting her tweet was part of a widely-recognised pattern of being an attention-seeking cretin who degrades the office of Speaker of the House of Commons almost as much as her ghastly little husband.
There's an unusual lack of comment from the usual plane geeks (not an insult; I include myself) about the BA762 emergency landing at Heathrow this morning. Everyone fine, thankfully, other than the birds that appear to have been shredded and lightly fricassed in engine 2.
Anyway, it's a good opportunity to post a link to this masterpiece
It'll be interesting to see what happened to the plane - if it was a bird strike (there seems to be some doubt on the radio). But thank goodness everyone was okay.
It throw up yet more questions about the capacity problems at Heathrow, and how best to fix them. One thing is for certain: the current situation cannot continue forever.
That they are inflicting protectionist restrictions on the UK, against the best interests of our country.
Presumably it is literally impossible for the EU to expel any country from membership, right?
What would actually happen in EU terms if, say, Lithuania elected a fascist government that then reintroduced the death penalty? What's the actual mechanism for reversing that law or removing that government, anyone know?
That they are inflicting protectionist restrictions on the UK, against the best interests of our country.
Presumably it is literally impossible for the EU to expel any country from membership, right?
What would actually happen in EU terms if, say, Lithuania elected a fascist government that then reintroduced the death penalty? What's the actual mechanism for reversing that law or removing that government, anyone know?
Given their inability to reverse the constitutional changes in Hungary, they'll be able to do sweet FA apart from some huffing and puffing.
So as I sit here on 24th May theres rain lashing down on the window, a howling north-easterly gale and the temperature's just 5C.
Whatever happened to the Mediterranean Climate we were promised in the 1990's? The weather seems to have become more Nordic than Spainish?
Our climate is moderated by the Gulf Stream. It is not an unreasonable hypothesis that climate change might affect this system, and that the effects of this on our climate would be significant.
Look at the countries at the same latitude. Canada and the southern bits of Scandinavia.
There's an unusual lack of comment from the usual plane geeks (not an insult; I include myself) about the BA762 emergency landing at Heathrow this morning. Everyone fine, thankfully, other than the birds that appear to have been shredded and lightly fricassed in engine 2.
Anyway, it's a good opportunity to post a link to this masterpiece
It'll be interesting to see what happened to the plane - if it was a bird strike (there seems to be some doubt on the radio). But thank goodness everyone was okay.
It throw up yet more questions about the capacity problems at Heathrow, and how best to fix them. One thing is for certain: the current situation cannot continue forever.
Oh, and that website's brilliant.
Following up my own post: looking at the video which shows the engine covers missing in flight, and the fact that BA have suspended all short-haul flights, I'm wondering if it might be a maintenance issue?
I wonder where the engine covers landed?
(It could still be a bird strike; I might inexpertly be reading too much into the images).
That they are inflicting protectionist restrictions on the UK, against the best interests of our country.
Presumably it is literally impossible for the EU to expel any country from membership, right?
What would actually happen in EU terms if, say, Lithuania elected a fascist government that then reintroduced the death penalty? What's the actual mechanism for reversing that law or removing that government, anyone know?
There is a trial run with Hungary at the moment, since the EU strongly disagrees with some of the things they've been doing in restricting media freedom. a first stage is that they lose "cohesion funding". That's quite a big deal in itself, but I believe that ultimately a position of total defiance would lead to membership suspension.
Given their inability to reverse the constitutional changes in Hungary, they'll be able to do sweet FA apart from some huffing and puffing.
I suppose what I'm musing on is at what point a country could do something so beyond the pale that the EU would decide they had to be expelled. What about one that flouted EU directives, didn't implement them, and didn't pay its subs? Actually, scratch that - hardly anyone pays in anyway so almost nobody has subs they could stop paying.
My suspicion is that a militant fascist government would be a HAL9000 paranoid fugue moment for the EU. Expelling a country would require it to return sovereignty to a member and to get smaller. This is in precise conflict with its 50-year agenda of absorbing member states' sovereignty and getting bigger.
Would the EU tolerate a fascist government if the alternative were to get smaller? I think it would.
Presumably it is literally impossible for the EU to expel any country from membership, right?
What would actually happen in EU terms if, say, Lithuania elected a fascist government that then reintroduced the death penalty? What's the actual mechanism for reversing that law or removing that government, anyone know?
The EU doesn't have a mechanism for expelling a member state, but it could suspend voting rights by unanimity of everyone except the country concerned.
I suppose in practice everyone would also be able to gang up on the offending member state in QMV decisions and be really mean to them until they agreed to leave of their own accord. A mechanism for leaving of your own accord was added in Lisbon.
So as I sit here on 24th May theres rain lashing down on the window, a howling north-easterly gale and the temperature's just 5C.
Whatever happened to the Mediterranean Climate we were promised in the 1990's? The weather seems to have become more Nordic than Spainish?
Our climate is moderated by the Gulf Stream. It is not an unreasonable hypothesis that climate change might affect this system, and that the effects of this on our climate would be significant.
Look at the countries at the same latitude. Canada and the southern bits of Scandinavia.
But the original idea (when it was called "Global Warming") was that the jet stream would be shunted north and the sub-tropical high pressure from the Azores would expand to deliver us consistently hot summers and mild, stormy winters.
The Med was supposed to become an arid desert like north Africa, while northern Europe would become like the Med.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
The EU doesn't have a mechanism for expelling a member state, but it could suspend voting rights by unanimity of everyone except the country concerned.
So presumably you could become a non-member in practice by simply doing whatever your electors decided. You could close your borders, for example.
Indeed, Mr. Gin. Those who believe in global warming claimed we'd have Mediterranean type weather, and are now claiming exactly the same cause for droughts, floods, prolonged cold winters etc etc.
One wonders what sort of weather is not covered by global warming (now handily renamed 'climate change', which rather ignores the fact that the UK's climate, like the world's, has always changed naturally).
Would the EU tolerate a fascist government if the alternative were to get smaller? I think it would.
When it comes to constitutional issues like this (as opposed to olive oil regulation or whatever) the EU is basically a collection of national governments, rather than an organization with a mind of its own. The Commission can prod it this way or that, but it's basically up to 28 Prime Ministers to decide what to do. So it would depend what their voters thought.
If you had a bunch of fairly liberal countries and one renegade fascist country you'd think there would be votes in taking a hard line. But I suppose that if one country has turned the fascism dial up to eleven it's most likely part of a continent-wide move that also has some other countries at 7, 8 and 9, and it wouldn't take much of a blocking minority to frustrate effective action.
The EU doesn't have a mechanism for expelling a member state, but it could suspend voting rights by unanimity of everyone except the country concerned.
So presumably you could become a non-member in practice by simply doing whatever your electors decided. You could close your borders, for example.
Well, if you actually wanted to become a non-member you'd just go ahead and leave...
The EU doesn't have a mechanism for expelling a member state, but it could suspend voting rights by unanimity of everyone except the country concerned.
So presumably you could become a non-member in practice by simply doing whatever your electors decided. You could close your borders, for example.
I wonder how the EU would react to a coup within a member country, resulting in military rule, or one with no sign of democracy re-emerging? Military intervention would be political dynamite, especially if the coup was [relatively] peaceful. Sanctions have proved to be weak-sauce and hurt the population much more than the regime.
Would it make a difference if the coup removed an unsavory regime (e.g. Fidesz in Hungary, or the aforementioned fascist regime elsewhere)? Who gets to decide what 'unsavory' is?
The EU doesn't have a mechanism for expelling a member state, but it could suspend voting rights by unanimity of everyone except the country concerned.
So presumably you could become a non-member in practice by simply doing whatever your electors decided. You could close your borders, for example.
So as I sit here on 24th May theres rain lashing down on the window, a howling north-easterly gale and the temperature's just 5C.
Whatever happened to the Mediterranean Climate we were promised in the 1990's? The weather seems to have become more Nordic than Spainish?
Our climate is moderated by the Gulf Stream. It is not an unreasonable hypothesis that climate change might affect this system, and that the effects of this on our climate would be significant.
Look at the countries at the same latitude. Canada and the southern bits of Scandinavia.
But the original idea (when it was called "Global Warming") was that the jet stream would be shunted north and the sub-tropical high pressure from the Azores would expand to deliver us consistently hot summers and mild, stormy winters.
The Med was supposed to become an arid desert like north Africa, while northern Europe would become like the Med.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
I'm just trying to think it through logically. Like a scientist perhaps should.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
The basic hypothesis is that the planet (air and sea combined) will get warmer. Once you've proved the basic physics, which you can do with a coke bottle, you figure out whether it's happening or not in the actual planet by seeing whether the planet gets warmer or not.
What's going to happen locally in any particular place is crazy hard, because you've got all kinds of complex systems that interact with each other, so if you get one bit a little bit wrong it can have knock-on effects that make another bit even wronger.
If it was easy to figure out all the details there might actually be less to worry about, because if the worst came to the worst we could geo-engineer our way out of it.
The EU doesn't have a mechanism for expelling a member state, but it could suspend voting rights by unanimity of everyone except the country concerned.
So presumably you could become a non-member in practice by simply doing whatever your electors decided. You could close your borders, for example.
I wonder how the EU would react to a coup within a member country, resulting in military rule, or one with no sign of democracy re-emerging? Military intervention would be political dynamite, especially if the coup was [relatively] peaceful. Sanctions have proved to be weak-sauce and hurt the population much more than the regime.
Would it make a difference if the coup removed an unsavory regime (e.g. Fidesz in Hungary, or the aforementioned fascist regime elsewhere)? Who gets to decide what 'unsavory' is?
This was vaguely discussed at one point in the context of Greece. But it's pretty straightforward really - EU membership carries a bunch of legal obligations (not directly related to whether people think you unsavory) including respecting human rights, and if one breaches them you can get compensation required to be paid to the victims and other penalties.
If you systematically refuse to play ball in any way then de facto suspension will follow, and of course that also means that the other countries can impose trade barriers and you'd then look silly trying to complain that your EU rights had been violated. You'd be better off just using the Lisbon procedure to leave voluntarily and negotiate trade etc. on your way out. The idea that losing a country is anathema isn't one I've heard - that'[s why Lisbon provided for it.
There isn't any scope for intervening militarily (no EU military forces, for a start), though if you imagine a new Hitler it's possible that other countries would decide to intervene - but that wouldn't be an EU action.
Why, once again, a fall in student immigration is good
The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
The basic hypothesis is that the planet (air and sea combined) will get warmer. Once you've proved the basic physics, which you can do with a coke bottle, you figure out whether it's happening or not in the actual planet by seeing whether the planet gets warmer or not.
What's going to happen locally in any particular place is crazy hard, because you've got all kinds of complex systems that interact with each other, so if you get one bit a little bit wrong it can have knock-on effects that make another bit even wronger.
If it was easy to figure out all the details there might actually be less to worry about, because if the worst came to the worst we could geo-engineer our way out of it.
Well, the expansion of the "sub-tropical belts" and the resulting northwards movement of the jet stream is hardly a "local" effect. It's key to the whole thing.
If anything I would say the past ten years have probably seen the sub-tropical belts and the jets stream shift a little bit south of their position in the 1990's. That shouldn't be happening, surely?
Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank gave a speech yesterday to a conference organised by the City of London Corporation. The theme of the conference was "The Future of Europe in the Global Economy".
Two statements made during the speech stand out. His opening conciliatory but entirely meaningless line:
Europe needs a more European UK as much as the UK needs a more British Europe
And his final conclusion:
The answer to the crisis has not been less Europe, but more Europe
For those wondering whether there was any substance in between, contemplate this vision of EU utopia:
“A more stable union will be one where financial contagion will have disappeared, where business for the financial centres will vastly increase, where financial market integration will resume.”
Well, yes, Sr. Draghi, but how about telling us how we will get there.
I'd not really seen much of Paisley Jn before last night but he really is an odious individual. I thought Tatchel was hugely restrained in his comments. I think if I'd had someone next to me coming out with such vile bigoted claptrap and then effectively telling me who I should be marrying I'd have smacked him.
Nawaz' put down was masterful and Paisley's body language throughout showed his fury at anyone having the temerity to challenge his views - even having a go at one of the audience members who'd simply asked him a question. Nasty piece of work, but as Nawaz indicated, yesterday's man.
Has the BBC mentioned that global warming flat-lined in 1998 yet? If the EU has given up on carbon suicide that just leaves the UK but political class here won't dare say anything till the BBC finally gives in.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
The basic hypothesis is that the planet (air and sea combined) will get warmer. Once you've proved the basic physics, which you can do with a coke bottle, you figure out whether it's happening or not in the actual planet by seeing whether the planet gets warmer or not.
What's going to happen locally in any particular place is crazy hard, because you've got all kinds of complex systems that interact with each other, so if you get one bit a little bit wrong it can have knock-on effects that make another bit even wronger.
If it was easy to figure out all the details there might actually be less to worry about, because if the worst came to the worst we could geo-engineer our way out of it.
The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect. The counter argument is that in fact these feedback mechanisms act to reduce the temperature impact (something along the lines of a refined Gaia Principle) and so any warming will be very small or non existent to the extent it will be masked by natural processes.
It is at this point that these models then have to be subjected to the real life data of the planet and what it is doing. That in itself is of course hugely difficult because of the problems with taking thousands of local readings and using them to create an overall picture of warming or cooling.
But anyone who tells you (and I am not saying this is what you were saying Edmund) that "it is all simple, just look at the lab experiments", clearly doesn't understand the basics of climate science.
I'd not really seen much of Paisley Jn before last night but he really is an odious individual. I thought Tatchel was hugely restrained in his comments. I think if I'd had someone next to me coming out with such vile bigoted claptrap and then effectively telling me who I should be marrying I'd have smacked him.
Nawaz' put down was masterful and Paisley's body language throughout showed his fury at anyone having the temerity to challenge his views - even having a go at one of the audience members who'd simply asked him a question. Nasty piece of work, but as Nawaz indicated, yesterday's man.
" I'd have smacked him."
Tut tut, Northern Ireland has moved on from political violence, really they wouldn't want your kind of eighteenth century mentality.
Why, once again, a fall in student immigration is good
The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.
If you systematically refuse to play ball in any way then de facto suspension will follow, and of course that also means that the other countries can impose trade barriers....The idea that losing a country is anathema isn't one I've heard - that's why Lisbon provided for it.
What I am wondering, Nick, is whether you could de facto leave by ignoring all the rules, without actually doing anything else about it. You'd then be either
1/ a member in such poor standing that you're not member, or 2/ expelled.
I take your point about Article 50 of Lisbon. I guess what I am thinking is that any invocation of that article would probably be opposed by some sort of process pleading.
Eg if a government invoked it, as a negotiating tactic for example, wouldn't the EU argue that they hadn't any mandate to do so? If they had one, in the shape of a referendum result, wouldn't they be required to keep repeating the referendum until the result changed?
Why, once again, a fall in student immigration is good
The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.
Why, once again, a fall in student immigration is good
The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.
If you systematically refuse to play ball in any way then de facto suspension will follow, and of course that also means that the other countries can impose trade barriers....The idea that losing a country is anathema isn't one I've heard - that's why Lisbon provided for it.
What I am wondering, Nick, is whether you could de facto leave by ignoring all the rules, without actually doing anything else about it. You'd then be either
1/ a member in such poor standing that you're not member, or 2/ expelled.
I take your point about Article 50 of Lisbon. I guess what I am thinking is that any invocation of that article would probably be opposed by some sort of process pleading.
Eg if a government invoked it, as a negotiating tactic for example, wouldn't the EU argue that they hadn't any mandate to do so? If they had one, in the shape of a referendum result, wouldn't they be required to keep repeating the referendum until the result changed?
I have recently been having a long discussion about this with Dr Richard North. He and I both agree that Article 50 is really the only legal way to proceed and remain in accordance with the Vienna Convention. Unfortunately there are a lot of headbangers in the BOO side who seem to think simply tearing up our treaty agreements would be fine. They really are not giving any thought to what this would mean in terms of trade and our relationship with the rest of the EU.
A few days ago in response to our discussions about the status of the UK in the EEA after leaving the EU (formally through invoking article 50) Dr North wrote to the Deputy Secretary-General of EFTA to ask for his opinion on the issue. I will let you know what he says when we hear back.
Why, once again, a fall in student immigration is good
The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect. The counter argument is that in fact these feedback mechanisms act to reduce the temperature impact (something along the lines of a refined Gaia Principle) and so any warming will be very small or non existent to the extent it will be masked by natural processes.
It is at this point that these models then have to be subjected to the real life data of the planet and what it is doing.
And worth noting here that the models have been pretty robust thus far.
There is no evidence that the predictions in them are totally wrong at all.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
The basic hypothesis is that the planet (air and sea combined) will get warmer. Once you've proved the basic physics, which you can do with a coke bottle, you figure out whether it's happening or not in the actual planet by seeing whether the planet gets warmer or not.
What's going to happen locally in any particular place is crazy hard, because you've got all kinds of complex systems that interact with each other, so if you get one bit a little bit wrong it can have knock-on effects that make another bit even wronger.
If it was easy to figure out all the details there might actually be less to worry about, because if the worst came to the worst we could geo-engineer our way out of it.
The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect. The counter argument is that in fact these feedback mechanisms act to reduce the temperature impact (something along the lines of a refined Gaia Principle) and so any warming will be very small or non existent to the extent it will be masked by natural processes.
It is at this point that these models then have to be subjected to the real life data of the planet and what it is doing. That in itself is of course hugely difficult because of the problems with taking thousands of local readings and using them to create an overall picture of warming or cooling.
But anyone who tells you (and I am not saying this is what you were saying Edmund) that "it is all simple, just look at the lab experiments", clearly doesn't understand the basics of climate science.
Yeah, that's pretty much the way I read it, Richard, but with the important caveat that the time scale for knowing for sure whether AGW is really dangerous is so long that we really ought to assume that it is and start doing something about it now.
If it turns out the dangers were exaggerated, little will have been lost. Other way round would be catastrophic.
Why, once again, a fall in student immigration is good
The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect. The counter argument is that in fact these feedback mechanisms act to reduce the temperature impact (something along the lines of a refined Gaia Principle) and so any warming will be very small or non existent to the extent it will be masked by natural processes.
It is at this point that these models then have to be subjected to the real life data of the planet and what it is doing.
And worth noting here that the models have been pretty robust thus far.
There is no evidence that the predictions in them are totally wrong at all.
Actually no, its worth noting that the models have not been robust at all when used in a predictive sense. They matched the actual measurements very well when used to back model pre- the mid 1990s but since then have diverged rapidly from the recorded measurements to the extent that many of the peer reviewed papers being released in the last year - including a number by former or current IPCC members - are now massively reducing the likely temperature rise.
The current global temperatures lie below even the lowest estimates of any of the IPCC models.
If it turns out the dangers were exaggerated, little will have been lost. Other way round would be catastrophic.
Little would have been lost. Really? So, if we encouranged the BRIC countries to shut down their plans and then said, "Sorry guys", it would have been little?
Why, once again, a fall in student immigration is good
The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
The basic hypothesis is that the planet (air and sea combined) will get warmer. Once you've proved the basic physics, which you can do with a coke bottle, you figure out whether it's happening or not in the actual planet by seeing whether the planet gets warmer or not.
What's going to happen locally in any particular place is crazy hard, because you've got all kinds of complex systems that interact with each other, so if you get one bit a little bit wrong it can have knock-on effects that make another bit even wronger.
If it was easy to figure out all the details there might actually be less to worry about, because if the worst came to the worst we could geo-engineer our way out of it.
The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect. The counter argument is that in fact these feedback mechanisms act to reduce the temperature impact (something along the lines of a refined Gaia Principle) and so any warming will be very small or non existent to the extent it will be masked by natural processes.
It is at this point that these models then have to be subjected to the real life data of the planet and what it is doing. That in itself is of course hugely difficult because of the problems with taking thousands of local readings and using them to create an overall picture of warming or cooling.
But anyone who tells you (and I am not saying this is what you were saying Edmund) that "it is all simple, just look at the lab experiments", clearly doesn't understand the basics of climate science.
Yeah, that's pretty much the way I read it, Richard, but with the important caveat that the time scale for knowing for sure whether AGW is really dangerous is so long that we really ought to assume that it is and start doing something about it now.
If it turns out the dangers were exaggerated, little will have been lost. Other way round would be catastrophic.
Little?
What about the thousands of old people who die because they cannot afford to heat their homes - made worse because of co2 taxes?
What about industry lost to China as we needlessly cripple our own?
What about the huge waste of diverting resources that might have been spent on creating solutions to potential problems another way?
If you want to believe in hockey-stick graphs (shown to have been pre-programmed into the models), then believe away. Just don't take the rest of us down with you.
Why, once again, a fall in student immigration is good
The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect. The counter argument is that in fact these feedback mechanisms act to reduce the temperature impact (something along the lines of a refined Gaia Principle) and so any warming will be very small or non existent to the extent it will be masked by natural processes.
It is at this point that these models then have to be subjected to the real life data of the planet and what it is doing.
And worth noting here that the models have been pretty robust thus far.
There is no evidence that the predictions in them are totally wrong at all.
Which model are you talking about? I generally think that AGW is happening, but the inaccuracy of the models so far has been one of the strongest reasons for doubting.
Personally I think we need more data points to decide what to do, given we are technically in an interglacial period within an ice age shutting down CO2 emmissions could concievably allow the world to run its natural course into a glacial (Another ice age). This would affect the world just as much as a runaway greenhouse would.
If one thinks its better to have a natural process over an unnatural, then take a look around - humans have changed the landscape of the land of the earth beyond all recognition. Our effect on long term temperature processes (climate) ? Much harder to evaluate, given we have only in the last fraction of a millisecond (Of the Earth's time) become 'industrialised'. Accuratish data from the last hundred years really isn't enough of a set.
The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect.
Do you have anything you can link me to showing that the mainline forecasts for future temperature increases are more down to feedback effects than the direct effect?
I'd not really seen much of Paisley Jn before last night but he really is an odious individual. I thought Tatchel was hugely restrained in his comments. I think if I'd had someone next to me coming out with such vile bigoted claptrap and then effectively telling me who I should be marrying I'd have smacked him.
Nawaz' put down was masterful and Paisley's body language throughout showed his fury at anyone having the temerity to challenge his views - even having a go at one of the audience members who'd simply asked him a question. Nasty piece of work, but as Nawaz indicated, yesterday's man.
The Quilliam Foundation do seem like a really smart bunch of guys and really point to a positive democratic future for Islam. Much better than people like the MCB.
Comments
"Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users. Things can be held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intent them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation. On this, I have learned my own lesson the hard way."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/24/sally-bercow-tweet-libelled-lord-mcalpine
Reading between the lines it looks as if the framework of a deal was agreed before the ruling.
"A subsequent High Court hearing will determine the damages she must pay."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22652083
I'm guessing that Bercow may want to accept the earlier offer but we have no idea if the offer is still open. Incidentally, I was impressed with the way Monbiot handled himself in this affair whereas Bercow has just confirmed her lack of class.
I can just see a collection of faces and avatars, some happy, some sad others about to have their disability cut
@reddeviljp
People who end up snitching on their neighbours for benefit fraud are usually wrong. Church report explains. pic.twitter.com/dCcD2SS8wU
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/crime-hardback
The word 'snitching' beautifully betrays your contempt for people who report what they suspect to be criminal activity.
Labour would far rather this didn't happen so that a significant minority of its client state could go back to fleecing the state in peace.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/crime-hardback
"Crime requires more than a predisposition to offend. It will flourish when we make it easy and shrivel when we make it hard."
Except he seems to have missed the coming of mobile phones, tablets and iPads. So if his idea is correct then crime should have gone up or simply switched from stealing car stereos to stealing mobile phones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
Except he seems to have missed the coming of mobile phones, tablets and iPads. So if his idea is correct then crime should have gone up or simply switched from stealing car stereos to stealing mobile phones.
It did.
http://www.economist.com/node/5175837
http://www.economist.com/node/5175837
I know it did. I'm saying his article was nonsense because he's saying crime went down because it became harder to steal stuff. It didn't get harder it got easier because of mobile phones, tablets etc.
Kipper pies .... Hhmmm not too sure ??
Bercow had challenged McAlpine’s claim insisting her tweet was part of a widely-recognised pattern of being an attention-seeking cretin who degrades the office of Speaker of the House of Commons almost as much as her ghastly little husband.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/twitter-not-allowed-to-be-completely-full-of-shit-2013052470025
On the contrary Jack, liking the fishy ones whilst being averse to UKIP is a well regarded test of sanity - fail and you are off to the care home!
Or would Michelle Obama being caught shoplifting not impact her husband's office?
It'll be interesting to see what happened to the plane - if it was a bird strike (there seems to be some doubt on the radio). But thank goodness everyone was okay.
It throw up yet more questions about the capacity problems at Heathrow, and how best to fix them. One thing is for certain: the current situation cannot continue forever.
Oh, and that website's brilliant.
What would actually happen in EU terms if, say, Lithuania elected a fascist government that then reintroduced the death penalty? What's the actual mechanism for reversing that law or removing that government, anyone know?
Whatever happened to the Mediterranean Climate we were promised in the 1990's? The weather seems to have become more Nordic than Spainish?
Look at the countries at the same latitude. Canada and the southern bits of Scandinavia.
To a large degree yes but still it smacks of antediluvian attitudes towards women as if their existence derives solely from their marriage.
Denis Thatcher was afflicted in the same way.
I wonder where the engine covers landed?
(It could still be a bird strike; I might inexpertly be reading too much into the images).
https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/337898188314902528/photo/1
http://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20130515/54373549164/nieve-cadenas-mayo-catalunya.html
See an older link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450004577279322368129522.html
and
the latest info I can see:
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/hungary-politics.nxz
My suspicion is that a militant fascist government would be a HAL9000 paranoid fugue moment for the EU. Expelling a country would require it to return sovereignty to a member and to get smaller. This is in precise conflict with its 50-year agenda of absorbing member states' sovereignty and getting bigger.
Would the EU tolerate a fascist government if the alternative were to get smaller? I think it would.
I suppose in practice everyone would also be able to gang up on the offending member state in QMV decisions and be really mean to them until they agreed to leave of their own accord. A mechanism for leaving of your own accord was added in Lisbon.
The Med was supposed to become an arid desert like north Africa, while northern Europe would become like the Med.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
One wonders what sort of weather is not covered by global warming (now handily renamed 'climate change', which rather ignores the fact that the UK's climate, like the world's, has always changed naturally).
If you had a bunch of fairly liberal countries and one renegade fascist country you'd think there would be votes in taking a hard line. But I suppose that if one country has turned the fascism dial up to eleven it's most likely part of a continent-wide move that also has some other countries at 7, 8 and 9, and it wouldn't take much of a blocking minority to frustrate effective action.
Would it make a difference if the coup removed an unsavory regime (e.g. Fidesz in Hungary, or the aforementioned fascist regime elsewhere)? Who gets to decide what 'unsavory' is?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22652433
I don't disagree with the cynicism, btw.
What's going to happen locally in any particular place is crazy hard, because you've got all kinds of complex systems that interact with each other, so if you get one bit a little bit wrong it can have knock-on effects that make another bit even wronger.
If it was easy to figure out all the details there might actually be less to worry about, because if the worst came to the worst we could geo-engineer our way out of it.
If you systematically refuse to play ball in any way then de facto suspension will follow, and of course that also means that the other countries can impose trade barriers and you'd then look silly trying to complain that your EU rights had been violated. You'd be better off just using the Lisbon procedure to leave voluntarily and negotiate trade etc. on your way out. The idea that losing a country is anathema isn't one I've heard - that'[s why Lisbon provided for it.
There isn't any scope for intervening militarily (no EU military forces, for a start), though if you imagine a new Hitler it's possible that other countries would decide to intervene - but that wouldn't be an EU action.
The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/why-once-again-a-fall-in-student-immigration-is-good/
If anything I would say the past ten years have probably seen the sub-tropical belts and the jets stream shift a little bit south of their position in the 1990's. That shouldn't be happening, surely?
Time for a little ECB Qualitative Teasing.
Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank gave a speech yesterday to a conference organised by the City of London Corporation. The theme of the conference was "The Future of Europe in the Global Economy".
Two statements made during the speech stand out. His opening conciliatory but entirely meaningless line:
Europe needs a more European UK as much as the UK needs a more British Europe
And his final conclusion:
The answer to the crisis has not been less Europe, but more Europe
For those wondering whether there was any substance in between, contemplate this vision of EU utopia:
“A more stable union will be one where financial contagion will have disappeared, where business for the financial centres will vastly increase, where financial market integration will resume.”
Well, yes, Sr. Draghi, but how about telling us how we will get there.
Before senior Draghi tells how we get there, he should first tell us how we should stop going in the opposite direction....
Nawaz' put down was masterful and Paisley's body language throughout showed his fury at anyone having the temerity to challenge his views - even having a go at one of the audience members who'd simply asked him a question. Nasty piece of work, but as Nawaz indicated, yesterday's man.
It is at this point that these models then have to be subjected to the real life data of the planet and what it is doing. That in itself is of course hugely difficult because of the problems with taking thousands of local readings and using them to create an overall picture of warming or cooling.
But anyone who tells you (and I am not saying this is what you were saying Edmund) that "it is all simple, just look at the lab experiments", clearly doesn't understand the basics of climate science.
Tut tut, Northern Ireland has moved on from political violence, really they wouldn't want your kind of eighteenth century mentality.
1/ a member in such poor standing that you're not member, or
2/ expelled.
I take your point about Article 50 of Lisbon. I guess what I am thinking is that any invocation of that article would probably be opposed by some sort of process pleading.
Eg if a government invoked it, as a negotiating tactic for example, wouldn't the EU argue that they hadn't any mandate to do so? If they had one, in the shape of a referendum result, wouldn't they be required to keep repeating the referendum until the result changed?
A few days ago in response to our discussions about the status of the UK in the EEA after leaving the EU (formally through invoking article 50) Dr North wrote to the Deputy Secretary-General of EFTA to ask for his opinion on the issue. I will let you know what he says when we hear back.
There is no evidence that the predictions in them are totally wrong at all.
If it turns out the dangers were exaggerated, little will have been lost. Other way round would be catastrophic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22651126
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg is this chart essentially your argument ?
The current global temperatures lie below even the lowest estimates of any of the IPCC models.
What about the thousands of old people who die because they cannot afford to heat their homes - made worse because of co2 taxes?
What about industry lost to China as we needlessly cripple our own?
What about the huge waste of diverting resources that might have been spent on creating solutions to potential problems another way?
If you want to believe in hockey-stick graphs (shown to have been pre-programmed into the models), then believe away. Just don't take the rest of us down with you.
There is no need to elaborate.
When I posted the same information based on what I see at the university I'm involved with, tim insisted it was an anecdote and therefore worthless.
Surely now it is statistics he will apologise?
If one thinks its better to have a natural process over an unnatural, then take a look around - humans have changed the landscape of the land of the earth beyond all recognition. Our effect on long term temperature processes (climate) ? Much harder to evaluate, given we have only in the last fraction of a millisecond (Of the Earth's time) become 'industrialised'. Accuratish data from the last hundred years really isn't enough of a set.
Sorry - now see they are only going from Lincolnshire to Stansted!