Dan Hannan Perhaps without intending to, the Economist shows why we should #VoteLeave. Imagine where we'll be in, say, 2050. https://t.co/GGE812nCsZ
The trend over the last few years is likely to reverse, as China and emerging markets are going into a slump while the EU is coming out of one. Trade with the EU is still 45% so not insignificant.
Can anyone name a trading block or country seperating that increased mutual trade after breaking up? Of course finding markets elsewhere is always possible, but not easy and takes time.
Stupid question as you well know. The examples of either countries or trading blocks breaking up is so rare and each individual circumstance so unique as to make any comparison pretty useless. But I strongly suspect that trade between the various Eastern bloc countries has increased dramatically since the Iron Curtain fell.
In absolute terms, massively I'm sure. Exports as a percent of GDP in the mid 1990s for most ex-Communist countries was in the 20-25% range. By 2015 it was close to 50% in Poland, and even higher for the Czech Republic and the Balkans.
But I think going capitalist probably had more to do with it than anything else.
I think you are right but it just goes to show what an idiotic and desperate question it was for Foxinsoxuk to ask.The follow up 'yehbbut' just confirms this.
I think small countries often end up getting sucked into the "sphere of influence" / orbit / etc. of the local "superpower" or equivalent.
It was undoubtedly better to get sucked into the EU's orbit, rather than Russia's.
But to some extent, that's like saying the Syphilis is better than Herpes.
Should Lee Rigbys killers have been executed..I think they should..no miscarriage of justice there..
What would it have achieved other than an enormous legal bill for HMG? The death penalty is not a deterrent for suicide terrorists.
Actually, keeping terrorists alive and in prison is probably worse, in their book, than executing them.
One of the big problems with that back in the 60's and 70's was the other members of the terrorist group would "hostage take" to attempt governments to release those tried and convicted. Of course the hostages were then summarily executed or given a death penalty without a trial if the governments did not negotiate. To be fair if you executed them you probably would have got a revenge attack anyway but there was not quite the number of suicide type bombers back then , certainly in the west anyway.
It shaped my original thinking anyway in favour but then the situation changed dramatically in recent years and it would now achieve little I think. Incarceration probably hurts them more rather than martyrdom as they would like.
I have always thought though that killers of children and police officers should not have quite the easy ride in prison they actually seem to have. They are segregated mostly if child killers etc. Yet if a police office discharges their weapon when under threat or believes the public are in danger resulting in a fatality they themselves could end up in jail or the family of the victim who was known to be for example " a gun toting bad 'un " ends of suing those involved.
I think we have to now err towards no death penalty compared to may years ago but in doing so we must then stand by and fully protect those that protect us.
I was especially unimpressed by the way some people tried to portray Mark Duggan as a martyr. If you choose to be a gangster, you run the risk of being shot down.
What you mean he isn't....all those doey eyed pictures I see whenever the BBC reports on this story, rather than using the far more menacing ones available.
If Foxinsoxuk and SO don't like Priti then it would seem she is a good choice for PM..
I don't like her either. I can't detect the slightest trace of humanity or goodness in her. She's probably the only senior Conservative I can think of who would push me into even considering voting for a Corbyn lead Labour Party.
Thatcher was in favour of the death penalty.
This isn't an issue.
I don't know whether or not she is leadership material, but support for capital punishment is hardly going to be negative among the general public.
There are two types of support for the death penalty:
1. The "I'm in theory in favour of it, but I probably wouldn't vote for it, because in the real world you'd probably end up killing the wrong people from time to time" group
and the
2. Bring it back! lot
I think 1 is probably quite a lot bigger than 2.
I think the biggest problem is that while, without doubt, there are people who deserve to executed, there will never be agreement as to who should be executed.
Since capital punishment isn't coming back (unless we find ourselves in another World War) a politician's views about it don't seem very important to me.
I find the death penalty debates both interesting and pointless, at a guess (its a guess) I'd say among the electorate its 50/50 but in parliament its probably 80% against (another guess). Even if I'm a little way out it shows parliament rarely represents the electorate's views, the EU is further proof.
I have to agree that describing her as someone without a "single trace of humanity" is particularly nasty. Does she torture puppies or murder small children? She is a politician who can come across as perhaps a bit wooden or even cold - the phrase you use is more apt for a mass-murdering dictator or perhaps one of the more brutal guards in a concentration camp. You do yourself and your arguments no favours with such phrases.
No, the word I would use to describe a mass-murderering dictator or such would be "evil". I am certainly NOT saying that about Patel.
Please note that I didn't say that she is without a "single trace of humanity". You are misquoting me.
What I actually said about her was "I can't detect the slightest trace of humanity or goodness..." I chose my words very carefully. I didn't say that she has no humanity or goodness. I said that *I* can't see any humanity or goodness in her. The implication of that is rather different to how you are decoding it.
Anyway, this has to be my last word on the subject. Clearly my opinion on the matter is rubbing some people up the wrong way and the last thing I would ever want to do on PB is get into a fight with anyone.
It's a very nasty post. Not unexpected from a hardline europhile.
I'm stating my honest opinion. Simple as that. Would you prefer me to lie and say that I can find a redeeming feature to her? Sorry, I can't.
I'm not being nasty. I'm calling it as I see it. There are plenty of eurosceptic politicians that I like and respect (Hoey, Redwood, Dorries even!!! I could go on...) not that I expect you to believe me. To lazily link my negative opinion of Patel to my euro-enthusiasm is so far wide of the mark to be utterly laughable.
No, it's utterly nasty. You can't detect a single trace of humanity in her?? Just who the f--k do you think you are?
It's a disgusting phrase. I wouldn't use it about a single politician at Westminster, from any party. The fact it's honest is deserving of no credit. It just goes to show how transparently unpleasant you are in baselessly condemning someone just because you vehemently disagree with them on a single issue.
Your views for her reflect the contempt you have for the ordinary British person as demonstrated in your ultra rabid europhilia, and your utterly ridiculous dribblings that Cameron's deal went "too far", which is shared so widely by your friends on the continent.
Don't be ridiculous. Hyperbole is common on here and having seen that clip that's how she struck me. For people who object to the death penalty it's a pretty defining issue. That she defended it in such a clumsy and unthinking way was particularly uunattractive.
I think it's fair to say some politicians don't come across well. Osborne seems to be in that category (personally doesn't bother me, but Salmond, Robertson and Balls are another matter).
I would say that Steven has been one of the uniformly least unpleasant posters on here for a very long time.
Thank you Richard. I appreciate that. But as, as far as I am aware, this is the first time that I've got into an unpleasant situation on PB then I probably did overstep the mark a bit - at least by my own usual boundaries.
Mr. Whaley, happens to us all (I remember using a term deemed ok in the UK but perhaps iffy elsewhere, in another place, and got jumped all over. That was a bit unsettling).
That said, Patel is clearly an excellent candidate for PM, equalled only by Justine Greening.
Should Lee Rigbys killers have been executed..I think they should..no miscarriage of justice there..
What would it have achieved other than an enormous legal bill for HMG? The death penalty is not a deterrent for suicide terrorists.
Actually, keeping terrorists alive and in prison is probably worse, in their book, than executing them.
One of the big problems with that back in the 60's and 70's was the other members of the terrorist group would "hostage take" to attempt governments to release those tried and convicted. Of course the hostages were then summarily executed or given a death penalty without a trial if the governments did not negotiate. To be fair if you executed them you probably would have got a revenge attack anyway but there was not quite the number of suicide type bombers back then , certainly in the west anyway.
It shaped my original thinking anyway in favour but then the situation changed dramatically in recent years and it would now achieve little I think. Incarceration probably hurts them more rather than martyrdom as they would like.
I have always thought though that killers of children and police officers should not have quite the easy ride in prison they actually seem to have. They are segregated mostly if child killers etc. Yet if a police office discharges their weapon when under threat or believes the public are in danger resulting in a fatality they themselves could end up in jail or the family of the victim who was known to be for example " a gun toting bad 'un " ends of suing those involved.
I think we have to now err towards no death penalty compared to may years ago but in doing so we must then stand by and fully protect those that protect us.
I was especially unimpressed by the way some people tried to portray Mark Duggan as a martyr. If you choose to be a gangster, you run the risk of being shot down.
What you mean he isn't....all those doey eyed pictures I see whenever the BBC reports on this story, rather than using the far more menacing ones available.
Similar to the way that the families of IRA members who were killed on "active service" seem to get indignant that their intended victims *shot back*
I would say that Steven has been one of the uniformly least unpleasant posters on here for a very long time.
Thank you Richard. I appreciate that. But as, as far as I am aware, this is the first time that I've got into an unpleasant situation on PB then I probably did overstep the mark a bit - at least by my own usual boundaries.
Normal service will be resumed.
I wouldn't be too bothered, the other night one poster told another to fuck off, its the internet, most people assume an alter ego of sorts. Its the ones that take themselves too seriously I worry for, their "real lives" are usually inadequate.
Dan Hannan Perhaps without intending to, the Economist shows why we should #VoteLeave. Imagine where we'll be in, say, 2050. https://t.co/GGE812nCsZ
The trend over the last few years is likely to reverse, as China and emerging markets are going into a slump while the EU is coming out of one. Trade with the EU is still 45% so not insignificant.
Can anyone name a trading block or country seperating that increased mutual trade after breaking up? Of course finding markets elsewhere is always possible, but not easy and takes time.
Stupid question as you well know. The examples of either countries or trading blocks breaking up is so rare and each individual circumstance so unique as to make any comparison pretty useless. But I strongly suspect that trade between the various Eastern bloc countries has increased dramatically since the Iron Curtain fell.
In absolute terms, massively I'm sure. Exports as a percent of GDP in the mid 1990s for most ex-Communist countries was in the 20-25% range. By 2015 it was close to 50% in Poland, and even higher for the Czech Republic and the Balkans.
But I think going capitalist probably had more to do with it than anything else.
Compared to the other former CIS states in the 'stans, Caucuses, Ukraine or Moldova and of course Russia, how have the ones that joined the EU done in terms of trade and GDP?
One of the Conservatives most positive actions in the 1990's was to encourage and support the eastward expansion of the EU. Millions of people are free and prosperous as a result.
So now one of your idiotic points (no breakup of a trade bloc ever sees an increase in trade) has been shot down you change the parameters.
No one denies that a western economic regime is better than a Soviet one, nor that the smaller more Westernised former soviet republics have done better than the larger more sparsely populated Asian ones. The point being that even without the EU existing the western European countries would have made sure the central European ones were a success to prevent a drift back to the Russian sphere of influence.
Mr. 63, are you suggesting I'm not actually a morris dancing castle-owner, who is currently researching ways to genetically perfect land-walking superfish?
Should Lee Rigbys killers have been executed..I think they should..no miscarriage of justice there..
What would it have achieved other than an enormous legal bill for HMG? The death penalty is not a deterrent for suicide terrorists.
Actually, keeping terrorists alive and in prison is probably worse, in their book, than executing them.
One of the big problems with that back in the 60's and 70's was the other members of the terrorist group would "hostage take" to attempt governments to release those tried and convicted. Of course the hostages were then summarily executed or given a death penalty without a trial if the governments did not negotiate. To be fair if you executed them you probably would have got a revenge attack anyway but there was not quite the number of suicide type bombers back then , certainly in the west anyway.
It shaped my original thinking anyway in favour but then the situation changed dramatically in recent years and it would now achieve little I think. Incarceration probably hurts them more rather than martyrdom as they would like.
I have always thought though that killers of children and police officers should not have quite the easy ride in prison they actually seem to have. They are segregated mostly if child killers etc. Yet if a police office discharges their weapon when under threat or believes the public are in danger resulting in a fatality they themselves could end up in jail or the family of the victim who was known to be for example " a gun toting bad 'un " ends of suing those involved.
I think we have to now err towards no death penalty compared to may years ago but in doing so we must then stand by and fully protect those that protect us.
I was especially unimpressed by the way some people tried to portray Mark Duggan as a martyr. If you choose to be a gangster, you run the risk of being shot down.
What you mean he isn't....all those doey eyed pictures I see whenever the BBC reports on this story, rather than using the far more menacing ones available.
Similar to the way that the families of IRA members who were killed on "active service" seem to get indignant that their intended victims *shot back*
And whatever you do, don't call them terrorists, that word is as outlawed as much a bunch & swarm.....
Mr. Whaley, happens to us all (I remember using a term deemed ok in the UK but perhaps iffy elsewhere, in another place, and got jumped all over. That was a bit unsettling).
That said, Patel is clearly an excellent candidate for PM, equalled only by Justine Greening.
Thanks, yes, it is unsettling but we live and learn.
I could accept Justine Greening without any problems and carry on voting Conservative - though there are lots of others that I'd prefer ahead of her. Anna Soubry would be my most favoured choice - not that there's any chance of that.
Blimey, I mention Patel as a positive for Leave and she's being talked of as PM.
Nigel Farage is against the death penalty, I'm for it. There was recently a case where two young men stomped on a heavily pregnant young lady with the intention of killing the baby, which they achieved. I would have little concern about how we executed them.
Priti Patel has many obvious positives for the Tories in the same way that Dan Jarvis does for Labour.
Many of the familiar attack lines simply won't work on them because of their back stories.
Should Lee Rigbys killers have been executed..I think they should..no miscarriage of justice there..
What would it have achieved other than an enormous legal bill for HMG? The death penalty is not a deterrent for suicide terrorists.
Actually, keeping terrorists alive and in prison is probably worse, in their book, than executing them.
One of the big problems with that back in the 60's and 70's was the other members of the terrorist group would "hostage take" to attempt governments to release those tried and convicted. Of course the hostages were then summarily executed or given a death penalty without a trial if the governments did not negotiate. To be fair if you executed them you probably would have got a revenge attack anyway but there was not quite the number of suicide type bombers back then , certainly in the west anyway.
It shaped my original thinking anyway in favour but then the situation changed dramatically in recent years and it would now achieve little I think. Incarceration probably hurts them more rather than martyrdom as they would like.
I have always thought though that killers of children and police officers should not have quite the easy ride in prison they actually seem to have. They are segregated mostly if child killers etc. Yet if a police office discharges their weapon when under threat or believes the public are in danger resulting in a fatality they themselves could end up in jail or the family of the victim who was known to be for example " a gun toting bad 'un " ends of suing those involved.
I think we have to now err towards no death penalty compared to may years ago but in doing so we must then stand by and fully protect those that protect us.
As mentioned by others, one starts getting into a debate about martyrdom. Sometimes too ..... by no means invariably ...... my terrorist is your freedom fighter.
Can't debate further, sadly, as grandfatherly duties start shortly.
I wouldn't be too bothered, the other night one poster told another to fuck off, its the internet, most people assume an alter ego of sorts. Its the ones that take themselves too seriously I worry for, their "real lives" are usually inadequate.
Thanks. Yes, though adopting an alter ego is less realistic for me as I post here under my real name. Some might say that's rather risky in of itself but I find that (usually!!!... usually...) it reins me in. lol
Dan Hannan Perhaps without intending to, the Economist shows why we should #VoteLeave. Imagine where we'll be in, say, 2050. https://t.co/GGE812nCsZ
The trend over the last few years is likely to reverse, as China and emerging markets are going into a slump while the EU is coming out of one. Trade with the EU is still 45% so not insignificant.
Can anyone name a trading block or country seperating that increased mutual trade after breaking up? Of course finding markets elsewhere is always possible, but not easy and takes time.
Stupid question as you well know. The examples of either countries or trading blocks breaking up is so rare and each individual circumstance so unique as to make any comparison pretty useless. But I strongly suspect that trade between the various Eastern bloc countries has increased dramatically since the Iron Curtain fell.
In absolute terms, massively I'm sure. Exports as a percent of GDP in the mid 1990s for most ex-Communist countries was in the 20-25% range. By 2015 it was close to 50% in Poland, and even higher for the Czech Republic and the Balkans.
But I think going capitalist probably had more to do with it than anything else.
Compared to the other former CIS states in the 'stans, Caucuses, Ukraine or Moldova and of course Russia, how have the ones that joined the EU done in terms of trade and GDP?
One of the Conservatives most positive actions in the 1990's was to encourage and support the eastward expansion of the EU. Millions of people are free and prosperous as a result.
So now one of your idiotic points (no breakup of a trade bloc ever sees an increase in trade) has been shot down you change the parameters.
No one denies that a western economic regime is better than a Soviet one, nor that the smaller more Westernised former soviet republics have done better than the larger more sparsely populated Asian ones. The point being that even without the EU existing the western European countries would have made sure the central European ones were a success to prevent a drift back to the Russian sphere of influence.
No. The Eastern European countries left one trade block (CIS) and joined another (EU). Their trade with the EU went up, and trade with CIS went down as a result.
My question was: when has the break up of a trading block ever increased mutual trade. It didn't in Eastern Europe, except by joining the EU.
Whatever your feelings about the UK benefiting from the EU, surely you recognise that Eastern European countries have done so?
Never understand the pathological opposition to the death penalty from people who happily support wars - which is probably all of us here, unless someone objects to our defeat of Hitler?
We kill innocent children with bombs and drones, in their 1000s, yet we quaver at the thought we might hang the wrong guy once every 20 years.
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, but there is no black and white moral case against it. Unless you believe the state must never take life, never go to war, never shoot terrorists, etc.
It is said that one reason for its abolition was that juries were becoming reluctant to convict in death penalty cases.
They have Bloomberg to run at an 18% chance. If you can somehow register (It is US only I think) perhaps a great way to cash your goldmine ?
It's an interesting site - oddly they seem to have an $850 max on each market. I think to sell a Bloomberg run, it would cost me more in fees/currency exchange etc for it to be worthwhile.
Also they charge 10% each time a contract is sold for a profit (unlike betfair's net 5% on market settlement) - so *trading* would become quite expensive.
Having said all that, they do have Donald trump @ 9/1 to come 2nd in NH which looks good value to me.
The site is basically intrade redux by the looks of it.
Never understand the pathological opposition to the death penalty from people who happily support wars - which is probably all of us here, unless someone objects to our defeat of Hitler?
We kill innocent children with bombs and drones, in their 1000s, yet we quaver at the thought we might hang the wrong guy once every 20 years.
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, but there is no black and white moral case against it. Unless you believe the state must never take life, never go to war, never shoot terrorists, etc.
It's a very nasty post. Not unexpected from a hardline europhile.
I'm stating my honest opinion. Simple as that. Would you prefer me to lie and say that I can find a redeeming feature to her? Sorry, I can't.
I'm not being nasty. I'm calling it as I see it. There are plenty of eurosceptic politicians that I like and respect (Hoey, Redwood, Dorries even!!! I could go on...) not that I expect you to believe me. To lazily link my negative opinion of Patel to my euro-enthusiasm is so far wide of the mark to be utterly laughable.
No, it's utterly nasty. You can't detect a single trace of humanity in her?? Just who the f--k do you think you are?
It's a disgusting phrase. I wouldn't use it about a single politician at Westminster, from any party. The fact it's honest is deserving of no credit. It just goes to show how transparently unpleasant you are in baselessly condemning someone just because you vehemently disagree with them on a single issue.
Your views for her reflect the contempt you have for the ordinary British person as demonstrated in your ultra rabid europhilia, and your utterly ridiculous dribblings that Cameron's deal went "too far", which is shared so widely by your friends on the continent.
I have to say Casino I think that is one of the most over the top reactions I have seen on here (yours I mean not Steven's). His comment wasn't complimentary by any means but neither was it anywhere near as bad as you are trying to portray it. Both you and I have said far worse things about politicians on here in the past.
I would say that Steven has been one of the uniformly least unpleasant posters on here for a very long time.
I do not know what she said or why but I agree with your assessment.
Mr. Foxinsox, not sure how much this has changed, but certainly a few years ago there was a defined state stake in large financial institutions and limited scope for foreign investment/ownership. It is capitalism, but not, if you like, full capitalism.
Mr. Observer, if the Conservatives think Corbyn's a dud, they're likelier to indulge their own preference rather than that of the electorate when it comes to picking Cameron's replacement.
The next Tory leader is unlikely to be facing Corbyn for a significant period of time, if at all. Should the Tory membership become as self-indulgent as the Labour membership, they may well end up paying the price. Not to the degree that Labour will under Corbyn, of course, but perhaps to the extent that they lose power. And the Tories really cannot afford to lose power. Their actions of issues such as party funding have made it open season on them once they are back in opposition.
The Tories will never lose power, at least in England.
Well, it is true that Labour hasn't won a majority in England since Tony Blair was Prime Minister.
And he was just a Red Tory. Who is the last Labour leader that Corbynitas are prepared to accept was Proppa Labour - Attlee?
We've done this sketch. And by the end of the EU referendum we might have pb Tories disowning Cameron.
Each time we "do this sketch", we never get an answer, because people like you feel a desperate need to deflect.
Read the thread.
Yeah, right - Heath is clasped close to the Corbynista heart as one of their own.
Tw@
Do keep up. Some on the left do indeed regard Blair as a red Tory. The parallel is that some on the right similarly disown Heath as a socialist. That was the basis of the joke which made the whooshing sound you heard.
Never understand the pathological opposition to the death penalty from people who happily support wars - which is probably all of us here, unless someone objects to our defeat of Hitler?
We kill innocent children with bombs and drones, in their 1000s, yet we quaver at the thought we might hang the wrong guy once every 20 years.
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, but there is no black and white moral case against it. Unless you believe the state must never take life, never go to war, never shoot terrorists, etc.
We go to war (or should do) when there is no alternative. The same for self defence, shooting terrorists etc. This is why I have no issue with police or soldiers shooting armed criminals.
Once that person has been arrested they are no longer an existential threat. As such we should have a different set of criteria about how we deal with them. All the more so considering how many times our justice system has comprehensively failed to put the right people in jail.
Never understand the pathological opposition to the death penalty from people who happily support wars - which is probably all of us here, unless someone objects to our defeat of Hitler?
We kill innocent children with bombs and drones, in their 1000s, yet we quaver at the thought we might hang the wrong guy once every 20 years.
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, but there is no black and white moral case against it. Unless you believe the state must never take life, never go to war, never shoot terrorists, etc.
I've given my own reasons upthread why I don't think it's practical to restore capital punishment, but I agree with you. We've killed innocent people in every military engagement of my lifetime. And, if you lock someone away for 25 years for a crime they've never committed, there's no way you can give them back a third of their life.
Blimey, I mention Patel as a positive for Leave and she's being talked of as PM.
Nigel Farage is against the death penalty, I'm for it. There was recently a case where two young men stomped on a heavily pregnant young lady with the intention of killing the baby, which they achieved. I would have little concern about how we executed them.
Priti Patel has many obvious positives for the Tories in the same way that Dan Jarvis does for Labour.
Many of the familiar attack lines simply won't work on them because of their back stories.
One could have said the same abut David Davis but it didn't do him much good.
Never understand the pathological opposition to the death penalty from people who happily support wars - which is probably all of us here, unless someone objects to our defeat of Hitler?
We kill innocent children with bombs and drones, in their 1000s, yet we quaver at the thought we might hang the wrong guy once every 20 years.
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, but there is no black and white moral case against it. Unless you believe the state must never take life, never go to war, never shoot terrorists, etc.
We go to war (or should do) when there is no alternative. The same for self defence, shooting terrorists etc. This is why I have no issue with police or soldiers shooting armed criminals.
Once that person has been arrested they are no longer an existential threat. As such we should have a different set of criteria about how we deal with them. All the more so considering how many times our justice system has comprehensively failed to put the right people in jail.
There will always be miscarriages of justice - in both directions - but that should not deter us from setting an appropriate penal policy.
If we are going to see a rise in the use of whole life terms, we could well see a renewed debate as to whether the death penalty might make a limited return.
If you are going to lock someone away until they die, does the length of time between sentencing and death make any difference?
Never understand the pathological opposition to the death penalty from people who happily support wars - which is probably all of us here, unless someone objects to our defeat of Hitler?
We kill innocent children with bombs and drones, in their 1000s, yet we quaver at the thought we might hang the wrong guy once every 20 years.
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, but there is no black and white moral case against it. Unless you believe the state must never take life, never go to war, never shoot terrorists, etc.
The killing of Jihadi John by a drone was possibly the closest we have come to a purposeful execution since hanging was abolished. It wasnt collateral damage, or an operational decision in the heat of a battle. The drone was sent to a specific target to execute a specific person (though it looks like it was a US drone not ours).
Never understand the pathological opposition to the death penalty from people who happily support wars - which is probably all of us here, unless someone objects to our defeat of Hitler?
We kill innocent children with bombs and drones, in their 1000s, yet we quaver at the thought we might hang the wrong guy once every 20 years.
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, but there is no black and white moral case against it. Unless you believe the state must never take life, never go to war, never shoot terrorists, etc.
We go to war (or should do) when there is no alternative. The same for self defence, shooting terrorists etc. This is why I have no issue with police or soldiers shooting armed criminals.
Once that person has been arrested they are no longer an existential threat. As such we should have a different set of criteria about how we deal with them. All the more so considering how many times our justice system has comprehensively failed to put the right people in jail.
There will always be miscarriages of justice - in both directions - but that should not deter us from setting an appropriate penal policy.
If we are going to see a rise in the use of whole life terms, we could well see a renewed debate as to whether the death penalty might make a limited return.
If you are going to lock someone away until they die, does the length of time between sentencing and death make any difference?
If I was convicted of a crime I didn't commit, I think I'd probably prefer a Whole Life term to a Death Sentence.
No. The Eastern European countries left one trade block (CIS) and joined another (EU). Their trade with the EU went up, and trade with CIS went down as a result.
My question was: when has the break up of a trading block ever increased mutual trade. It didn't in Eastern Europe, except by joining the EU.
Whatever your feelings about the UK benefiting from the EU, surely you recognise that Eastern European countries have done so?
But it is a fatuous point. Simply by not being in the CIS the trade with western Europe was bound to go up. It is meaningless as a measure of success by the EU. Just look at how much money the US pumped into the central European countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That would have happened with or without the EU as would the reunification of Germany and the return of the Central European countries to the western European trade network. Bear in mind these countries had only been out of contact with Western Europe for around 50 years. The idea that without the EU they would have failed as states is pretty insulting to all those who made them successful in the post Soviet era.
Mr. G, what's the point of changing the name? It has a cost, but no benefit, except a vain effort to appease those with a vested interest in making the name change irrelevant as soon as possible.
It's a step away from asking the English Channel to be renamed the British Channel.
No. The Eastern European countries left one trade block (CIS) and joined another (EU). Their trade with the EU went up, and trade with CIS went down as a result.
My question was: when has the break up of a trading block ever increased mutual trade. It didn't in Eastern Europe, except by joining the EU.
Whatever your feelings about the UK benefiting from the EU, surely you recognise that Eastern European countries have done so?
But it is a fatuous point. Simply by not being in the CIS the trade with western Europe was bound to go up. It is meaningless as a measure of success by the EU. Just look at how much money the US pumped into the central European countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That would have happened with or without the EU as would the reunification of Germany and the return of the Central European countries to the western European trade network. Bear in mind these countries had only been out of contact with Western Europe for around 50 years. The idea that without the EU they would have failed as states is pretty insulting to all those who made them successful in the post Soviet era.
Arguing over counter-factuals is always pretty dumb.
But I think the *desire* of certain Eastern European countries to enter the EU spurred institutional change that was good for them.
Never understand the pathological opposition to the death penalty from people who happily support wars - which is probably all of us here, unless someone objects to our defeat of Hitler?
We kill innocent children with bombs and drones, in their 1000s, yet we quaver at the thought we might hang the wrong guy once every 20 years.
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, but there is no black and white moral case against it. Unless you believe the state must never take life, never go to war, never shoot terrorists, etc.
We go to war (or should do) when there is no alternative. The same for self defence, shooting terrorists etc. This is why I have no issue with police or soldiers shooting armed criminals.
Once that person has been arrested they are no longer an existential threat. As such we should have a different set of criteria about how we deal with them. All the more so considering how many times our justice system has comprehensively failed to put the right people in jail.
There will always be miscarriages of justice - in both directions - but that should not deter us from setting an appropriate penal policy.
If we are going to see a rise in the use of whole life terms, we could well see a renewed debate as to whether the death penalty might make a limited return.
If you are going to lock someone away until they die, does the length of time between sentencing and death make any difference?
Yes because it always gives the opportunity for putting right an injustice, at least to some extent. You can't bring back the dead and say sorry.
Never understand the pathological opposition to the death penalty from people who happily support wars - which is probably all of us here, unless someone objects to our defeat of Hitler?
We kill innocent children with bombs and drones, in their 1000s, yet we quaver at the thought we might hang the wrong guy once every 20 years.
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, but there is no black and white moral case against it. Unless you believe the state must never take life, never go to war, never shoot terrorists, etc.
We go to war (or should do) when there is no alternative. The same for self defence, shooting terrorists etc. This is why I have no issue with police or soldiers shooting armed criminals.
Once that person has been arrested they are no longer an existential threat. As such we should have a different set of criteria about how we deal with them. All the more so considering how many times our justice system has comprehensively failed to put the right people in jail.
There will always be miscarriages of justice - in both directions - but that should not deter us from setting an appropriate penal policy.
If we are going to see a rise in the use of whole life terms, we could well see a renewed debate as to whether the death penalty might make a limited return.
If you are going to lock someone away until they die, does the length of time between sentencing and death make any difference?
Without doubt, there are people who are so dangerous that they should never be let back into society. They aren't necessarily murderers, either. Conversely, many murderers are not especially bad people, who can safely be let back into society.
If Foxinsoxuk and SO don't like Priti then it would seem she is a good choice for PM..
I don't like her either. I can't detect the slightest trace of humanity or goodness in her. She's probably the only senior Conservative I can think of who would push me into even considering voting for a Corbyn lead Labour Party.
Thatcher was in favour of the death penalty.
This isn't an issue.
Different era. Plus Patel's position is laughable.
She, I paraphrase, said 'We don't find innocent people guilty, so there will be no miscarriage of justice'
Did she really say that (or something like it)? That's incredible if true.
While I am personally against the death penalty, it is not a "touchstone" issue for me. But anyone who denies that miscarriages of justice happen in the UK is utterly deluded.
If Patel said there are no miscarriages of justice then she is indeed quite deluded. Her remarks hardly do her any credit. It is the several clear miscarriages we have had since the abolition that have turned me off the death penalty. Part of me would very much like to see it still available but I cannot really justify it. Not only have we seen several people released since conviction who would otherwise probably be dead, but we also see some pretty horrible hounding by the press eager for suspects.
There is another side - it is possible to imagine that the horror and finality of the sentence might cause more acquittals!
Mr. Foxinsox, not sure how much this has changed, but certainly a few years ago there was a defined state stake in large financial institutions and limited scope for foreign investment/ownership. It is capitalism, but not, if you like, full capitalism.
Mr. Observer, if the Conservatives think Corbyn's a dud, they're likelier to indulge their own preference rather than that of the electorate when it comes to picking Cameron's replacement.
The next Tory leader is unlikely to be facing Corbyn for a significant period of time, if at all. Should the Tory membership become as self-indulgent as the Labour membership, they may well end up paying the price. Not to the degree that Labour will under Corbyn, of course, but perhaps to the extent that they lose power. And the Tories really cannot afford to lose power. Their actions of issues such as party funding have made it open season on them once they are back in opposition.
The Tories will never lose power, at least in England.
Well, it is true that Labour hasn't won a majority in England since Tony Blair was Prime Minister.
But he was a Tory, right?
So they have not won a majority in England since when, Wilson?
Yes but Heath was a socialist which gives Labour several in a row.
Which is arguable. Trouble is the only obvious alternative is Bank of Britain. Not sure they really want that...
Oh it's worth doing if only to get rid of the endless drone of Scots complaining no one will accept Monopoly Money notes.
Well just have one single set of notes - as you say they haven't really thought this through.
Actually, on consideration, I think we should agree to the Nats' desire for a name change. We can just call it Bank of Britain, as you say. And have one set of notes throughout the UK.
Job done. Everyone happy.
Bank of the United Kingdom , Federated and Sovereign Territories.
Or BUKFAST for short, just to give a nod to our Northern compatriots.
I would say that Steven has been one of the uniformly least unpleasant posters on here for a very long time.
Thank you Richard. I appreciate that. But as, as far as I am aware, this is the first time that I've got into an unpleasant situation on PB then I probably did overstep the mark a bit - at least by my own usual boundaries.
Normal service will be resumed.
I'd like to apologise too Steven. I went too far too and on reflection I was out of line too.
I'm sorry.
I'll be logging out for the rest of the day now as I'm off to have lunch with my wife.
I wouldn't be too bothered, the other night one poster told another to fuck off, its the internet, most people assume an alter ego of sorts. Its the ones that take themselves too seriously I worry for, their "real lives" are usually inadequate.
Thanks. Yes, though adopting an alter ego is less realistic for me as I post here under my real name. Some might say that's rather risky in of itself but I find that (usually!!!... usually...) it reins me in. lol
I used to feel the same, and have been perhaps more exposed than you, but after a while I thought wtf, I only live once, I'll say what I think. Nobody cared, as I suspected - Anna Soubry once tried the line "Your MP spends time posting on an obscure forum instead of looking after you" but didn't go into what I was saying. I used to be accused of being instructed by the whips on what I should say (in reality they don't give a toss so long as you vote the way they want) and SeanT still says I'm a careerist after I've retired, but hey.
You could re-register under a pseudonym, but I wouldn't bother. You're well-liked here, occasionally someone you don't know may be rude, but so what? Maybe you did inadvertently provoke it a bit this time, we all do it.
I'd be very surprised if China allowed the North and South of Korea to reunite. And it would be China's decision. Far more likely, surely, is a faux capitalist, authoritarian regime that would continue to be a buffer zone between the Chinese and a country with a lot of US bases on its soil.
German reunification was only possible because of the general collapse of the Soviet system and the Soviet Union's own terminal weakness.
One wonders how long China can go on with a capitalist economy and a purportedly Communist government.
Sooner or later there will be democratic reforms in China. People with economic freedom soon want political freedom too.
There are definitely emerging pressure points and the regime is undoubtedly getting a lot touchier, but I think there is a fair way to go yet before there are significant democratic reforms in China.
The old guard in China hold onto the survival of North Korea as a totem - it was their generation that fought the war (at a terrible cost).
The younger generation see North Korea as a strategic booby prize. They would quite happily see a re-united Korea... Fully re-united and developed, Korea would be Canada to the US - an asset rather than a threat.
It would be pretty easy for China to offer (pretty much) free money to help rebuild the united Korea in return for a commitment to no foreign troops on Korean soil. This would push the Americans out. The Chinese themselves don't need a base there. This would continue the Chinese long range plan to push all "foreign influences" out of South East Asia.
I think indy is probably off the agenda for 15-20 years, until the Nats can develop an alternative economic case (which is quite possible, but will take time). The interesting thing is whether the SNP can maintain their dominance, and unity, in the face of this. Fundamentalists will surely get angry. Demand another indyref, then split off when it doesn't happen..
The SNP's cohesion has been formidable in recent years. I don't believe it can last.
Cui Bono?
Thanks to a Tory PM standing up for England they can of course rely on the Barnett formula in spite of the economic downturn and new powers promised for Holyrood.
It seems Priti Patel is going to break cover and campaign to Leave.
I'd argue that's the most significant person that Leave could hope for. As we all know, campaigns are about momentum, it is definitely with the Outers
With certain 'Outers' fearing that by joining the 'Out' campaign they'd be lining up with the ultra right and the fruitcakes I would think someone advocating capital punishment would be the last person they'd want as their poster girl.
It’s also somewhat ironic having someone as employment minister who believes British workers are inherently lazy.
That is the belief of many in the Labour party - need to import workers to do the jobs the British won't do.
The irony is that a higher, enforced minimum wage is simply going to mean the bottom end jobs will disappear.
In the high street shops, they are already planning on getting rid of the zero-skill "assistants" and replace them with a couple more of the higher paid staff.
In fast food etc - totally automated fast food setups are already on the way.
In agriculture, automation for crop picking is already available.
The idea that without the EU they would have failed as states is pretty insulting to all those who made them successful in the post Soviet era.
The idea that the EU was an irrelevant factor is pretty insulting to those same people given that they saw it as a critical goal. Were they just lacking your deeper insight into what was good for them?
Judging by the mental and physical state of some prisoners serving whole life sentences, I sometimes think execution could be seen as the lesser punishment.
Dan Hannan Perhaps without intending to, the Economist shows why we should #VoteLeave. Imagine where we'll be in, say, 2050. https://t.co/GGE812nCsZ
The trend over the last few years is likely to reverse, as China and emerging markets are going into a slump while the EU is coming out of one. Trade with the EU is still 45% so not insignificant.
Can anyone name a trading block or country seperating that increased mutual trade after breaking up? Of course finding markets elsewhere is always possible, but not easy and takes time.
Stupid question as you well know. The examples of either countries or trading blocks breaking up is so rare and each individual circumstance so unique as to make any comparison pretty useless. But I strongly suspect that trade between the various Eastern bloc countries has increased dramatically since the Iron Curtain fell.
In absolute terms, massively I'm sure. Exports as a percent of GDP in the mid 1990s for most ex-Communist countries was in the 20-25% range. By 2015 it was close to 50% in Poland, and even higher for the Czech Republic and the Balkans.
But I think going capitalist probably had more to do with it than anything else.
Compared to the other former CIS states in the 'stans, Caucuses, Ukraine or Moldova and of course Russia, how have the ones that joined the EU done in terms of trade and GDP?
One of the Conservatives most positive actions in the 1990's was to encourage and support the eastward expansion of the EU. Millions of people are free and prosperous as a result.
My favourite post communist stat, Russian GDP per capita. Under Yeltsin/IMF from 3,100 in 1992 down to 1,800 in 2000, then under Putin up to 11,700 in 2008, a sixfold increase. Absolutely remarkable.
Like I said Rubio is just a little bit of a dullard and that would show in the debate. Rubio really needed a strong performance in NH, and I don't see how his campaign sees him getting a then needed first in SC. Trump nice a solid performance I read, all he needed to do, but really he needs to take one of Rubio or Cruz down in NH, so 30 plus with low teens for the other two.
Rubio is a very dangerous man, look at his financial sugar-daddies, nice to see Rubio Glitch prompting on google. The Fat-man nuked the Flamingo Kid, you can see why Christie was such a great prosecutor.
I think indy is probably off the agenda for 15-20 years, until the Nats can develop an alternative economic case (which is quite possible, but will take time). The interesting thing is whether the SNP can maintain their dominance, and unity, in the face of this. Fundamentalists will surely get angry. Demand another indyref, then split off when it doesn't happen..
The SNP's cohesion has been formidable in recent years. I don't believe it can last.
Cui Bono?
Thanks to a Tory PM standing up for England they can of course rely on the Barnett formula in spite of the economic downturn and new powers promised for Holyrood.
Are you as daft as you make out Frank or is that just irony. Tories are trying to cheat and rob on both your points.
Dan Hannan Perhaps without intending to, the Economist shows why we should #VoteLeave. Imagine where we'll be in, say, 2050. https://t.co/GGE812nCsZ
The trend over the last few years is likely to reverse, as China and emerging markets are going into a slump while the EU is coming out of one. Trade with the EU is still 45% so not insignificant.
Can anyone name a trading block or country seperating that increased mutual trade after breaking up? Of course finding markets elsewhere is always possible, but not easy and takes time.
Stupid question as you well know. The examples of either countries or trading blocks breaking up is so rare and each individual circumstance so unique as to make any comparison pretty useless. But I strongly suspect that trade between the various Eastern bloc countries has increased dramatically since the Iron Curtain fell.
In absolute terms, massively I'm sure. Exports as a percent of GDP in the mid 1990s for most ex-Communist countries was in the 20-25% range. By 2015 it was close to 50% in Poland, and even higher for the Czech Republic and the Balkans.
But I think going capitalist probably had more to do with it than anything else.
Compared to the other former CIS states in the 'stans, Caucuses, Ukraine or Moldova and of course Russia, how have the ones that joined the EU done in terms of trade and GDP?
One of the Conservatives most positive actions in the 1990's was to encourage and support the eastward expansion of the EU. Millions of people are free and prosperous as a result.
My favourite post communist stat, Russian GDP per capita. Under Yeltsin/IMF from 3,100 in 1992 down to 1,800 in 2000, then under Putin up to 11,700 in 2008, a sixfold increase. Absolutely remarkable.
Which is arguable. Trouble is the only obvious alternative is Bank of Britain. Not sure they really want that...
Oh it's worth doing if only to get rid of the endless drone of Scots complaining no one will accept Monopoly Money notes.
Well just have one single set of notes - as you say they haven't really thought this through.
Actually, on consideration, I think we should agree to the Nats' desire for a name change. We can just call it Bank of Britain, as you say. And have one set of notes throughout the UK.
Job done. Everyone happy.
Bank of the United Kingdom , Federated and Sovereign Territories.
Or BUKFAST for short, just to give a nod to our Northern compatriots.
The idea that without the EU they would have failed as states is pretty insulting to all those who made them successful in the post Soviet era.
The idea that the EU was an irrelevant factor is pretty insulting to those same people given that they saw it as a critical goal. Were they just lacking your deeper insight into what was good for them?
Its not insulting at all. Unlike you I credit them with the ability and willpower to have made successes of themselves even without the EU. It is you and Fox who apparently think they were so useless they needed nanny to do it all for them.
Thankfully some at least like Hungary are starting to see the EU was not what was promised.
Which is arguable. Trouble is the only obvious alternative is Bank of Britain. Not sure they really want that...
Of all the things going on in the world have they not got something more important to be complaining about? Teacakes?
See my prior post. It's because independence is off the agenda. This leaves a gaping psychic void which must be filled with something. Anything. Teacakes. Whatever.
Mr. G, what's the point of changing the name? It has a cost, but no benefit, except a vain effort to appease those with a vested interest in making the name change irrelevant as soon as possible.
It's a step away from asking the English Channel to be renamed the British Channel.
Which is arguable. Trouble is the only obvious alternative is Bank of Britain. Not sure they really want that...
Just what you would expect from unionists , for them Britain = England so can see nothing wrong in it.
Er, I'm not sure you entirely get my point. The Nats apparently want it to be called the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But to be kind, that's not really going to happen, practically speaking, is it? It'll have to Bank of Britain. But you don't want that either. Bank of the U.K.? No, thought not.
Besides, all this is classic displacement activity for a movement which has lost its central purpose. Independence. I've been googling this morning and the problem for Nats isn't just the low price of oil, it's that the low price is terminating, in perpetuity, older, more expensive oil sectors. Such as the North Sea. Fields are now being decommissioned. Wells being capped.
As a Cornishman I know what that means. Once the tin mines were watered they never reopened.
Given all the oil money flows to London , it will have little to zero impact on Scotland , other than on some overpriced houses in Aberdeen. We have never had the benefit of the oil money so your argument is pointless to say the least.
My favourite post communist stat, Russian GDP per capita. Under Yeltsin/IMF from 3,100 in 1992 down to 1,800 in 2000, then under Putin up to 11,700 in 2008, a sixfold increase. Absolutely remarkable.
Not remarkable at all: go look at the growth of Venezuela, Chile, Saudi Arabia, etc. over the same time. All much of a muchness.
Why? Because they were resource exporters during a time when the price of oil went up 15x.
In US dollars, Russian GDP has more than halved in the past 18 months.
The idea that without the EU they would have failed as states is pretty insulting to all those who made them successful in the post Soviet era.
The idea that the EU was an irrelevant factor is pretty insulting to those same people given that they saw it as a critical goal. Were they just lacking your deeper insight into what was good for them?
Its not insulting at all. Unlike you I credit them with the ability and willpower to have made successes of themselves even without the EU. It is you and Fox who apparently think they were so useless they needed nanny to do it all for them.
Thankfully some at least like Hungary are starting to see the EU was not what was promised.
The ex Communist party apparatchiks were the ones most in favour of joining the EU, perhaps unsurprisingly.
Wonder if Trump is going to appoint Christie as the AG, certainly did Trump's work for him and I assume they know each other already.
The idea that without the EU they would have failed as states is pretty insulting to all those who made them successful in the post Soviet era.
The idea that the EU was an irrelevant factor is pretty insulting to those same people given that they saw it as a critical goal. Were they just lacking your deeper insight into what was good for them?
Its not insulting at all. Unlike you I credit them with the ability and willpower to have made successes of themselves even without the EU. It is you and Fox who apparently think they were so useless they needed nanny to do it all for them.
Thankfully some at least like Hungary are starting to see the EU was not what was promised.
No-one is saying that 'nanny' did it all for them; they did it themselves. If you see the EU as nanny despite being a citizen of one of its most significant constituents then you should adopt a less passive mindset.
My point is that they themselves thought that the EU provided the best framework in which their abilities and willpower would lead to sustainable results and improve the standing of their people. So far there is no historical evidence that this was a mistaken judgement so it's insulting to those who strived to make it happen to claim that they were wrong.
'Thankfully some at least like Hungary are starting to see the EU was not what was promised'
When I worked in eastern Europe in the 1990s, one of the things that really put me off the EU was having to deal with the EU's local representatives, who were generally fantastically arrogant and condescending towards east Europeans.
The idea that without the EU they would have failed as states is pretty insulting to all those who made them successful in the post Soviet era.
The idea that the EU was an irrelevant factor is pretty insulting to those same people given that they saw it as a critical goal. Were they just lacking your deeper insight into what was good for them?
Its not insulting at all. Unlike you I credit them with the ability and willpower to have made successes of themselves even without the EU. It is you and Fox who apparently think they were so useless they needed nanny to do it all for them.
Thankfully some at least like Hungary are starting to see the EU was not what was promised.
No-one is saying that 'nanny' did it all for them; they did it themselves. If you see the EU as nanny despite being a citizen of one of its most significant constituents then you should adopt a less passive mindset.
My point is that they themselves thought that the EU provided the best framework in which their abilities and willpower would lead to sustainable results and improve the standing of their people. So far there is no historical evidence that this was a mistaken judgement so it's insulting to those who strived to make it happen to claim that they were wrong.
I see the EU as being fundamentally bad for the whole of Europe. It goes way beyond 'Nanny'.
Which is arguable. Trouble is the only obvious alternative is Bank of Britain. Not sure they really want that...
Oh it's worth doing if only to get rid of the endless drone of Scots complaining no one will accept Monopoly Money notes.
Well just have one single set of notes - as you say they haven't really thought this through.
Actually, on consideration, I think we should agree to the Nats' desire for a name change. We can just call it Bank of Britain, as you say. And have one set of notes throughout the UK.
Job done. Everyone happy.
Bank of the United Kingdom , Federated and Sovereign Territories.
Or BUKFAST for short, just to give a nod to our Northern compatriots.
Very good, very good.
United Repository National of Britain and related Unifications.
Blimey, I mention Patel as a positive for Leave and she's being talked of as PM.
Nigel Farage is against the death penalty, I'm for it. There was recently a case where two young men stomped on a heavily pregnant young lady with the intention of killing the baby, which they achieved. I would have little concern about how we executed them.
Problem is that it completely upends the relationship between the State and the People.
At present, the State's authority ultimately rests on delegated authority from the People. If you allow the State the power to execute members of the People that creates a circularity in the flow of authority.
The State certainly has the right to exclude members of the People from receiving the benefits of being a member of society, i.e. exile [either foreign exile - don't let them back from Syria - or internal exile via the prison system] but it doesn't have the right to kill them.
If Foxinsoxuk and SO don't like Priti then it would seem she is a good choice for PM..
I don't like her either. I can't detect the slightest trace of humanity or goodness in her. She's probably the only senior Conservative I can think of who would push me into even considering voting for a Corbyn lead Labour Party.
Thatcher was in favour of the death penalty.
This isn't an issue.
Different era. Plus Patel's position is laughable.
She, I paraphrase, said 'We don't find innocent people guilty, so there will be no miscarriage of justice'
Did she really say that (or something like it)? That's incredible if true.
[snip youtube]
While I am personally against the death penalty, it is not a "touchstone" issue for me. But anyone who denies that miscarriages of justice happen in the UK is utterly deluded.
Indeed.
Here's the full segment
[snip you tube]
If Patel said there are no miscarriages of justice then she is indeed quite deluded. Her remarks hardly do her any credit. It is the several clear miscarriages we have had since the abolition that have turned me off the death penalty. Part of me would very much like to see it still available but I cannot really justify it. Not only have we seen several people released since conviction who would otherwise probably be dead, but we also see some pretty horrible hounding by the press eager for suspects.
There is another side - it is possible to imagine that the horror and finality of the sentence might cause more acquittals!
I don't think she actually quite said that.
She said that is why we have a very high burden of proof in the criminal courts and if the death sentence is implemented then it must have been satisfied.
Not far away, perhaps, not not quite how @TheScreamingEagles is portraying things
I would guess so. Christie will surely get a bounce.
In Kevin Keegan style, I would love it if Fiorina beats Bush as it will make the order of drop-outs more unpredictable. She deserves at least one more main stage debate appearance.
Which is arguable. Trouble is the only obvious alternative is Bank of Britain. Not sure they really want that...
Just what you would expect from unionists , for them Britain = England so can see nothing wrong in it.
Er, I'm not sure you entirely get my point. The Nats apparently want it to be called the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But to be kind, that's not really going to happen, practically speaking, is it? It'll have to Bank of Britain. But you don't want that either. Bank of the U.K.? No, thought not.
Besides, all this is classic displacement activity for a movement which has lost its central purpose. Independence. I've been googling this morning and the problem for Nats isn't just the low price of oil, it's that the low price is terminating, in perpetuity, older, more expensive oil sectors. Such as the North Sea. Fields are now being decommissioned. Wells being capped.
As a Cornishman I know what that means. Once the tin mines were watered they never reopened.
Given all the oil money flows to London , it will have little to zero impact on Scotland , other than on some overpriced houses in Aberdeen. We have never had the benefit of the oil money so your argument is pointless to say the least.
Which is arguable. Trouble is the only obvious alternative is Bank of Britain. Not sure they really want that...
Just what you would expect from unionists , for them Britain = England so can see nothing wrong in it.
Er, I'm not sure you entirely get my point. The Nats apparently want it to be called the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But to be kind, that's not really going to happen, practically speaking, is it? It'll have to Bank of Britain. But you don't want that either. Bank of the U.K.? No, thought not.
Besides, all this is classic displacement activity for a movement which has lost its central purpose. Independence. I've been googling this morning and the problem for Nats isn't just the low price of oil, it's that the low price is terminating, in perpetuity, older, more expensive oil sectors. Such as the North Sea. Fields are now being decommissioned. Wells being capped.
As a Cornishman I know what that means. Once the tin mines were watered they never reopened.
Given all the oil money flows to London , it will have little to zero impact on Scotland , other than on some overpriced houses in Aberdeen. We have never had the benefit of the oil money so your argument is pointless to say the least.
Comments
It was undoubtedly better to get sucked into the EU's orbit, rather than Russia's.
But to some extent, that's like saying the Syphilis is better than Herpes.
Please note that I didn't say that she is without a "single trace of humanity". You are misquoting me.
What I actually said about her was "I can't detect the slightest trace of humanity or goodness..." I chose my words very carefully. I didn't say that she has no humanity or goodness. I said that *I* can't see any humanity or goodness in her. The implication of that is rather different to how you are decoding it.
Anyway, this has to be my last word on the subject. Clearly my opinion on the matter is rubbing some people up the wrong way and the last thing I would ever want to do on PB is get into a fight with anyone.
If she backs Leave and becomes more outspoken she will hopefully be in with a shot at leader.
50/1 is available at Coral. 80/1 is available for her being next PM.
Normal service will be resumed.
That said, Patel is clearly an excellent candidate for PM, equalled only by Justine Greening.
No one denies that a western economic regime is better than a Soviet one, nor that the smaller more Westernised former soviet republics have done better than the larger more sparsely populated Asian ones. The point being that even without the EU existing the western European countries would have made sure the central European ones were a success to prevent a drift back to the Russian sphere of influence.
http://www.executedtoday.com/images/Rainey_Bethea_hanging_big.jpg
I could accept Justine Greening without any problems and carry on voting Conservative - though there are lots of others that I'd prefer ahead of her. Anna Soubry would be my most favoured choice - not that there's any chance of that.
Many of the familiar attack lines simply won't work on them because of their back stories.
Can't debate further, sadly, as grandfatherly duties start shortly.
My question was: when has the break up of a trading block ever increased mutual trade. It didn't in Eastern Europe, except by joining the EU.
Whatever your feelings about the UK benefiting from the EU, surely you recognise that Eastern European countries have done so?
Also they charge 10% each time a contract is sold for a profit (unlike betfair's net 5% on market settlement) - so *trading* would become quite expensive.
Having said all that, they do have Donald trump @ 9/1 to come 2nd in NH which looks good value to me.
The site is basically intrade redux by the looks of it.
Caveat Punter.
Once that person has been arrested they are no longer an existential threat. As such we should have a different set of criteria about how we deal with them. All the more so considering how many times our justice system has comprehensively failed to put the right people in jail.
If we are going to see a rise in the use of whole life terms, we could well see a renewed debate as to whether the death penalty might make a limited return.
If you are going to lock someone away until they die, does the length of time between sentencing and death make any difference?
It's a step away from asking the English Channel to be renamed the British Channel.
But I think the *desire* of certain Eastern European countries to enter the EU spurred institutional change that was good for them.
Well just have one single set of notes - as you say they haven't really thought this through.
There is another side - it is possible to imagine that the horror and finality of the sentence might cause more acquittals!
Or BUKFAST for short, just to give a nod to our Northern compatriots.
I'm sorry.
I'll be logging out for the rest of the day now as I'm off to have lunch with my wife.
You could re-register under a pseudonym, but I wouldn't bother. You're well-liked here, occasionally someone you don't know may be rude, but so what? Maybe you did inadvertently provoke it a bit this time, we all do it.
The younger generation see North Korea as a strategic booby prize. They would quite happily see a re-united Korea... Fully re-united and developed, Korea would be Canada to the US - an asset rather than a threat.
It would be pretty easy for China to offer (pretty much) free money to help rebuild the united Korea in return for a commitment to no foreign troops on Korean soil. This would push the Americans out. The Chinese themselves don't need a base there. This would continue the Chinese long range plan to push all "foreign influences" out of South East Asia.
The death penalty is one thing, pacifism is quite another.
The irony is that a higher, enforced minimum wage is simply going to mean the bottom end jobs will disappear.
In the high street shops, they are already planning on getting rid of the zero-skill "assistants" and replace them with a couple more of the higher paid staff.
In fast food etc - totally automated fast food setups are already on the way.
In agriculture, automation for crop picking is already available.
etc etc.
Like I said Rubio is just a little bit of a dullard and that would show in the debate. Rubio really needed a strong performance in NH, and I don't see how his campaign sees him getting a then needed first in SC. Trump nice a solid performance I read, all he needed to do, but really he needs to take one of Rubio or Cruz down in NH, so 30 plus with low teens for the other two.
Rubio is a very dangerous man, look at his financial sugar-daddies, nice to see Rubio Glitch prompting on google. The Fat-man nuked the Flamingo Kid, you can see why Christie was such a great prosecutor.
Thankfully some at least like Hungary are starting to see the EU was not what was promised.
Given all the oil money flows to London , it will have little to zero impact on Scotland , other than on some overpriced houses in Aberdeen. We have never had the benefit of the oil money so your argument is pointless to say the least.
Why? Because they were resource exporters during a time when the price of oil went up 15x.
In US dollars, Russian GDP has more than halved in the past 18 months.
Wonder if Trump is going to appoint Christie as the AG, certainly did Trump's work for him and I assume they know each other already.
My point is that they themselves thought that the EU provided the best framework in which their abilities and willpower would lead to sustainable results and improve the standing of their people. So far there is no historical evidence that this was a mistaken judgement so it's insulting to those who strived to make it happen to claim that they were wrong.
When I worked in eastern Europe in the 1990s, one of the things that really put me off the EU was having to deal with the EU's local representatives, who were generally fantastically arrogant and condescending towards east Europeans.
Bank of Urn Bru for short .......
At present, the State's authority ultimately rests on delegated authority from the People. If you allow the State the power to execute members of the People that creates a circularity in the flow of authority.
The State certainly has the right to exclude members of the People from receiving the benefits of being a member of society, i.e. exile [either foreign exile - don't let them back from Syria - or internal exile via the prison system] but it doesn't have the right to kill them.
Jihadi John's British ISIS accomplice unveiled as QPR-supporting Londoner who went on George Galloway aid mission: https://t.co/ZKyYr9TyGy
She said that is why we have a very high burden of proof in the criminal courts and if the death sentence is implemented then it must have been satisfied.
Not far away, perhaps, not not quite how @TheScreamingEagles is portraying things
(Feb. 3-6)
Trump 33% (+5)
Rubio 16% (-1)
Cruz 14% (+1)
Kasich 11% (-2)
Bush 7% (-2)
Fiorina 6% (+1)
Christie 4% -
New Thread New Thread
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435885/Jeremy-Corbyn-told-prepare-General-Election-year-amid-fears-David-Cameron-resign-EU-referendum.html
In Kevin Keegan style, I would love it if Fiorina beats Bush as it will make the order of drop-outs more unpredictable. She deserves at least one more main stage debate appearance.