1. How and where did a 17 year old German kid acquire a modern handgun and 300 rounds of ammunition?
Bonus question:
2. How and where did he learn to shoot with reasonable accuracy?
Is it really that hard to shoot with reasonable accuracy? I had a brief spell at a gun club when I was young, and I seem to remember that just pointing and pulling the trigger had roughly the desired effect.
Gun clubs don't provide you with moving targets in a street, chaos, noise and nerves.
If you look at the number of estimated rounds fired versus hits he wasn't that bad for a loner.
The Columbine kids achieved a similar death toll.
2 versus 1 gunmen...largely indoors less outdoors, long arms and handguns, larger magazines. In the US kids get to shoot shit without people noticing much, not so in Germany.
Sur Humphreys not got anything better to do? And rather condescending of those for whom English is a second language. Most I know speak & in particular write better English than a lot of native speakers.
As for automated text readers, surely it can't be that hard to fix that bug.
Most peop,e have little conception of the Latin phrases denoted by things such etc or ie, they may as well just be English words, and they're short and useful, so not using them doesn't seem like it would help at all.
By the by, I was told by a Latin speaker than where we use et cetera actual Latin speakers would have used a different phrase, but I cannot recall what it was, I'd be fascinated if they were right or just pulling my leg.
If only there were some global resource that would allow people to actually look shit up and learn something. It would be fantastic.
Your sarcasm is noted. I'm fascinated in the sense if the answer falls in my lap I'd be Interestec, but I dont care enough to check. I hope you permit people to use words figuratively.
There's a word for that level of interest - one of my favourite words: velleity
It means roughly "an interest in achieving a certain outcome, but not a strong enough interest to put any effort into achieving it"
I think about it in the context that you would like to change the TV channel but you are in your favourite chair and the remote is on the other side of the room...
Thank you Charles for the introduction to a wonderfully obscure but useful word. I shall no doubt be forcing it into sentences where it does not belong, just for the pleasure of seeing bemused faces ...
Sur Humphreys not got anything better to do? And rather condescending of those for whom English is a second language. Most I know speak & in particular write better English than a lot of native speakers.
As for automated text readers, surely it can't be that hard to fix that bug.
The article says that Latin is part of our cultural heritage and a language from which English is descended. Is either actually true? Latin is/was a component of Catholic church ceremony, but outside the religious sphere it's little used. I also thought that English is descended from languages like Saxon, Norse, French, and isn't thought to be a Romance language. Happy to be contradicted on either point, but I am puzzled.
Some of our language is Latin, some is Germanic in origin.
One curiosity I like is that the names of farm animals are generally Germanic in origin, while the names of the meat they produce tend to be French. E.g. cow/beef.
But that's just a byproduct of our class system isn't it?
Which, presumably, is a by-product of the Norman invasion.
Yep but I replied before reading rest of the thread....
I had thought the majority of our words are latin in origin, with greek also contributing significantly in the technical arena, but that most of the most common words are from the Germanic (i.e. Old English) roots.
English borrows from every language, including Arabic (zero, saffron, tariff, alcohol, magazine, algebra, chemistry and coffee to name but a few)
Yes, that's why English is regarded as a Germanic language. The common, core words, such as pronouns, parts of the body, animals, etc. (oops) are mostly Germanic.
1. How and where did a 17 year old German kid acquire a modern handgun and 300 rounds of ammunition?
Bonus question:
2. How and where did he learn to shoot with reasonable accuracy?
Is it really that hard to shoot with reasonable accuracy? I had a brief spell at a gun club when I was young, and I seem to remember that just pointing and pulling the trigger had roughly the desired effect.
Gun clubs don't provide you with moving targets in a street, chaos, noise and nerves.
If you look at the number of estimated rounds fired versus hits he wasn't that bad for a loner.
The Columbine kids achieved a similar death toll.
2 versus 1 gunmen...largely indoors less outdoors, long arms and handguns, larger magazines. In the US kids get to shoot shit without people noticing much, not so in Germany.
And, as I mentioned in my edit, there was Erfurt.
What is your alternative theory?
I'm asking the question, not providing a theory. The obtaining of an illegal weapon in Germany by a kid with no criminal connections and his apparent relative accuracy given no previous known experience of weapons handling is an unusually great bit of luck.
There are precedents for Oppositions performing poorly circa 15 months into a Parliament and still going on to win the following General Election. The 1959 Parliament comes to mind in that at the end of 1960 a Labour victory in 1963 or 1964 seemed unlikely based on the Tory lead being recorded in the polls.
Can we confine ourselves to scenarios which don't involve a popular new Labour leader taking over shortly before the general election, nor an unpopular new Conservative taking over from a respected PM? Because we're talking here about what polling is telling us about a May-Corbyn contest at a general election, not an Osborne-Benn contest conducted in a context such as that which followed 1963.
Labour's lead was well established long before Wilson took over in February 1963.
1. How and where did a 17 year old German kid acquire a modern handgun and 300 rounds of ammunition?
Bonus question:
2. How and where did he learn to shoot with reasonable accuracy?
Is it really that hard to shoot with reasonable accuracy? I had a brief spell at a gun club when I was young, and I seem to remember that just pointing and pulling the trigger had roughly the desired effect.
Gun clubs don't provide you with moving targets in a street, chaos, noise and nerves.
If you look at the number of estimated rounds fired versus hits he wasn't that bad for a loner.
The Columbine kids achieved a similar death toll.
2 versus 1 gunmen...largely indoors less outdoors, long arms and handguns, larger magazines. In the US kids get to shoot shit without people noticing much, not so in Germany.
And, as I mentioned in my edit, there was Erfurt.
What is your alternative theory?
I'm asking the question, not providing a theory. The obtaining of an illegal weapon in Germany by a kid with no criminal connections and his apparent relative accuracy given no previous known experience of weapons handling is an unusually great bit of luck.
Presumably the same luck possessed by 19-year-old Robert Steinhauser, who killed 16 people with a Glock in Erfurt, also in Germany. Why the need for the conspiracy theory suggestions?
1. How and where did a 17 year old German kid acquire a modern handgun and 300 rounds of ammunition?
Bonus question:
2. How and where did he learn to shoot with reasonable accuracy?
Is it really that hard to shoot with reasonable accuracy? I had a brief spell at a gun club when I was young, and I seem to remember that just pointing and pulling the trigger had roughly the desired effect.
Gun clubs don't provide you with moving targets in a street, chaos, noise and nerves.
If you look at the number of estimated rounds fired versus hits he wasn't that bad for a loner.
The Columbine kids achieved a similar death toll.
2 versus 1 gunmen...largely indoors less outdoors, long arms and handguns, larger magazines. In the US kids get to shoot shit without people noticing much, not so in Germany.
And, as I mentioned in my edit, there was Erfurt.
What is your alternative theory?
I'm asking the question, not providing a theory. The obtaining of an illegal weapon in Germany by a kid with no criminal connections and his apparent relative accuracy given no previous known experience of weapons handling is an unusually great bit of luck.
Presumably the same luck possessed by 19-year-old Robert Steinhauser, who killed 16 people with a Glock in Erfurt, also in Germany. Why the need for the conspiracy theory suggestions?
Where did I suggest a conspiracy? You don't know me very well, if I think something I'll say it.
Trump also now has lower unfavourables than Clinton.
Just wait until they find out he's being partly funded by Russia and that he is nixing anything anti Putin. This is going to start getting noticed and I can't see any way it's not going to hurt him badly. It's also likely we are going to see links made with those Russian hackers. I mean Clinton has negatives but nowhere near that sort of thing.
Sur Humphreys not got anything better to do? And rather condescending of those for whom English is a second language. Most I know speak & in particular write better English than a lot of native speakers.
As for automated text readers, surely it can't be that hard to fix that bug.
The article says that Latin is part of our cultural heritage and a language from which English is descended. Is either actually true? Latin is/was a component of Catholic church ceremony, but outside the religious sphere it's little used. I also thought that English is descended from languages like Saxon, Norse, French, and isn't thought to be a Romance language. Happy to be contradicted on either point, but I am puzzled.
Some of our language is Latin, some is Germanic in origin.
One curiosity I like is that the names of farm animals are generally Germanic in origin, while the names of the meat they produce tend to be French. E.g. cow/beef.
But that's just a byproduct of our class system isn't it?
Which, presumably, is a by-product of the Norman invasion.
Yep but I replied before reading rest of the thread....
I had thought the majority of our words are latin in origin, with greek also contributing significantly in the technical arena, but that most of the most common words are from the Germanic (i.e. Old English) roots.
That sentence itself comes out at 26 Old English, 9 Latin, 1 Greek.
There are precedents for Oppositions performing poorly circa 15 months into a Parliament and still going on to win the following General Election. The 1959 Parliament comes to mind in that at the end of 1960 a Labour victory in 1963 or 1964 seemed unlikely based on the Tory lead being recorded in the polls.
Can we confine ourselves to scenarios which don't involve a popular new Labour leader taking over shortly before the general election, nor an unpopular new Conservative taking over from a respected PM? Because we're talking here about what polling is telling us about a May-Corbyn contest at a general election, not an Osborne-Benn contest conducted in a context such as that which followed 1963.
Labour's lead was well established long before Wilson took over in February 1963.
Does it not worry you that you have to look back 53 years to provide a comparative position that makes now look good for Labour.
Trump also now has lower unfavourables than Clinton.
Just wait until they find out he's being partly funded by Russia and that he is nixing anything anti Putin. This is going to start getting noticed and I can't see any way it's not going to hurt him badly. It's also likely we are going to see links made with those Russian hackers. I mean Clinton has negatives but nowhere near that sort of thing.
Clinton's running mate is already ploughing that line.
Trump also now has lower unfavourables than Clinton.
Just wait until they find out he's being partly funded by Russia and that he is nixing anything anti Putin. This is going to start getting noticed and I can't see any way it's not going to hurt him badly. It's also likely we are going to see links made with those Russian hackers. I mean Clinton has negatives but nowhere near that sort of thing.
Clinton's running mate is already ploughing that line.
It's a difficult line to tread as the fact that the Russians had access to the DNC computers and Hillary's emails just highlights their own incompetence.
Trump will just embrace it and double-down on being the candidate who can turn Russia into an ally to take on the threat of Islamic terrorism.
The article says that Latin is part of our cultural heritage and a language from which English is descended. Is either actually true? Latin is/was a component of Catholic church ceremony, but outside the religious sphere it's little used. I also thought that English is descended from languages like Saxon, Norse, French, and isn't thought to be a Romance language. Happy to be contradicted on either point, but I am puzzled.
Some of our language is Latin, some is Germanic in origin.
One curiosity I like is that the names of farm animals are generally Germanic in origin, while the names of the meat they produce tend to be French. E.g. cow/beef.
But that's just a byproduct of our class system isn't it?
Which, presumably, is a by-product of the Norman invasion.
Yep but I replied before reading rest of the thread....
I had thought the majority of our words are latin in origin, with greek also contributing significantly in the technical arena, but that most of the most common words are from the Germanic (i.e. Old English) roots.
English borrows from every language, including Arabic (zero, saffron, tariff, alcohol, magazine, algebra, chemistry and coffee to name but a few)
Yes, that's why English is regarded as a Germanic language. The common, core words, such as pronouns, parts of the body, animals, etc. (oops) are mostly Germanic.
No, this is incorrect if I recall correctly. Even had more of the core vocabulary been "over-written" by words absorbed from French (and Latin and so on) it doesn't change the fact that English is a Germanic language. No further assimilation of vocabulary from India or Arabia makes English any less Germanic either. It is the underlying structure and history of the language that marks English as Germanic. Obviously there are clues to that in the core vocabulary retaining so many Germanic roots but that isn't the reason in its own right. If you dig into the evolution of the language, the only sensible classification is Germanic even though more than half the vocabulary (not weighted by usage) is of Romantic origin.
Surely that doesn't count; it's just a German word!
By the way, as a (second language) German speaker, my least favourite borrowed word is Zeitgeist. I've never heard it pronounced correctly by an English speaker!
There are precedents for Oppositions performing poorly circa 15 months into a Parliament and still going on to win the following General Election. The 1959 Parliament comes to mind in that at the end of 1960 a Labour victory in 1963 or 1964 seemed unlikely based on the Tory lead being recorded in the polls.
Can we confine ourselves to scenarios which don't involve a popular new Labour leader taking over shortly before the general election, nor an unpopular new Conservative taking over from a respected PM? Because we're talking here about what polling is telling us about a May-Corbyn contest at a general election, not an Osborne-Benn contest conducted in a context such as that which followed 1963.
Labour's lead was well established long before Wilson took over in February 1963.
Does it not worry you that you have to look back 53 years to provide a comparative position that makes now look good for Labour.
Because it probably should....
I am not a committed Labour supporter . Have only voted Labour once of the last five General Elections.
The article says that Latin is part of our cultural heritage and a language from which English is descended. Is either actually true? Latin is/was a component of Catholic church ceremony, but outside the religious sphere it's little used. I also thought that English is descended from languages like Saxon, Norse, French, and isn't thought to be a Romance language. Happy to be contradicted on either point, but I am puzzled.
Some of our language is Latin, some is Germanic in origin.
One curiosity I like is that the names of farm animals are generally Germanic in origin, while the names of the meat they produce tend to be French. E.g. cow/beef.
But that's just a byproduct of our class system isn't it?
Which, presumably, is a by-product of the Norman invasion.
Yep but I replied before reading rest of the thread....
I had thought the majority of our words are latin in origin, with greek also contributing significantly in the technical arena, but that most of the most common words are from the Germanic (i.e. Old English) roots.
English borrows from every language, including Arabic (zero, saffron, tariff, alcohol, magazine, algebra, chemistry and coffee to name but a few)
Yes, that's why English is regarded as a Germanic language. The common, core words, such as pronouns, parts of the body, animals, etc. (oops) are mostly Germanic.
No, this is incorrect if I recall correctly. Even had more of the core vocabulary been "over-written" by words absorbed from French (and Latin and so on) it doesn't change the fact that English is a Germanic language. No further assimilation of vocabulary from India or Arabia makes English any less Germanic either. It is the underlying structure and history of the language that marks English as Germanic. Obviously there are clues to that in the core vocabulary retaining so many Germanic roots but that isn't the reason in its own right. If you dig into the evolution of the language, the only sensible classification is Germanic even though more than half the vocabulary (not weighted by usage) is of Romantic origin.
I don't see it myself. English word order is more like French than German, we mostly use the Romance "s" to make plurals, and we don't inflect our nouns and adjectives to the extent that German does. I'd say that our Germanic roots are reflected in core vocabulary rather than grammar.
Trump also now has lower unfavourables than Clinton.
Just wait until they find out he's being partly funded by Russia and that he is nixing anything anti Putin. This is going to start getting noticed and I can't see any way it's not going to hurt him badly. It's also likely we are going to see links made with those Russian hackers. I mean Clinton has negatives but nowhere near that sort of thing.
Clinton's running mate is already ploughing that line.
It's a difficult line to tread as the fact that the Russians had access to the DNC computers and Hillary's emails just highlights their own incompetence.
Trump will just embrace it and double-down on being the candidate who can turn Russia into an ally to take on the threat of Islamic terrorism.
Good luck with that to his people. Reagan fought the cold war and those voters are now the aging ones who Trump needs, Putin is a demagogue not averse to disappearing opponents, supporting dictators, invading democracies and promoting cheating in sport.
Manafort, for one, is a gift that will keep on giving.
I don't see it myself. English word order is more like French than German, we mostly use the Romance "s" to make plurals, and we don't inflect our nouns and adjectives to the extent that German does. I'd say that our Germanic roots are reflected in core vocabulary rather than grammar.
The similarities are too blatant to ignore.
I see - Ich sehe I saw - Ich sah I have seen - Ich habe gesehen
Of course Latin had a case system like modern German and unlike modern Romance languages so you need to be careful comparing characteristics of languages as they're spoken today to understand their origins.
I don't see it myself. English word order is more like French than German, we mostly use the Romance "s" to make plurals, and we don't inflect our nouns and adjectives to the extent that German does. I'd say that our Germanic roots are reflected in core vocabulary rather than grammar.
The similarities are too blatant to ignore.
I see - Ich sehe I saw - Ich sah I have seen - Ich habe gesehen
Of course Latin had a case system like modern German and unlike modern Romance languages so you need to be careful comparing characteristics of languages as they're spoken today to understand their origins.
I'm not sure who you're supporting here. French word order (and grammar) for these examples would be exactly the same, but the vocabulary is obviously Germanic. This would support my contention that core vocabulary is more important than grammar in determining language associations.
I don't see it myself. English word order is more like French than German, we mostly use the Romance "s" to make plurals, and we don't inflect our nouns and adjectives to the extent that German does. I'd say that our Germanic roots are reflected in core vocabulary rather than grammar.
The similarities are too blatant to ignore.
I see - Ich sehe I saw - Ich sah I have seen - Ich habe gesehen
Of course Latin had a case system like modern German and unlike modern Romance languages so you need to be careful comparing characteristics of languages as they're spoken today to understand their origins.
I'm not sure who you're supporting here. French word order (and grammar) for these examples would be exactly the same, but the vocabulary is obviously Germanic. This would support my contention that core vocabulary is more important than grammar in determining language associations.
The grammar is obviously Germanic. The vowel shift in the imperfect and the way the perfect is formed.
Try a construction like 'Ich bekomme mein Kind nicht zum Schlafen'. It's (almost) exactly the same as English and very different from the French - 'Je n'arrive pas à faire dormir mon enfant'.
Interesting insight into just how President Trump will operate when he wins (~30%) in 4months time.
Vice President Pence better hit the ground running..
"The New York Times reported last week that when Ohio governor John Kasich was approached by Trump’s son as a potential vice-presidential running mate, he was told that the vice-president in a Trump White House would be responsible for domestic and foreign policy. So what, he asked, would President Trump be responsible for? “For making America great again,” was the breezy reply. "
"It is vital that we (ie the 27) have the UK in the single market as much as possible.."
And that's just reps close to the Dutch and Italian govs, and the Commission.
And after 4weeks..
DavidDs approach is going to be walkover: "There will be No FoM. Now, what are you going to offer in return for a continuing preferential share our massive trade deficit?"
Dave (and the federasts) really were *useless* negotiators.
There would surely be totally uproar if May agreed to that.
An emergency brake for 7 years and after that a return to complete free movement of people - ie not just labour.
That would mean we had effectively remained within the EU as far as trade and movement of people is concerned - we would just have lost our ability to have any influence on EU decisions.
It's surely inconceivable that people like Davis and Fox would agree to that.
"It is vital that we (ie the 27) have the UK in the single market as much as possible.."
And that's just reps close to the Dutch and Italian govs, and the Commission.
And after 4weeks..
DavidDs approach is going to be walkover: "There will be No FoM. Now, what are you going to offer in return for a continuing preferential share our massive trade deficit?"
Dave (and the federasts) really were *useless* negotiators.
He thought the British are stupid. Say we have a reformed Europe and they will buy it. Always a PR man at heart.
That would mean we had effectively remained within the EU as far as trade and movement of people is concerned - we would just have lost our ability to have any influence on EU decisions.
It's possible that we'll slowly edge towards a position where we will be able to chose between two known knowns. Either:
- The new deal, with no say in decisions, or - The new deal, remaining as full members
Interesting insight into just how President Trump will operate when he wins (~30%) in 4months time.
That Janet Daley article you linked is such lazy, sloppy, journalism: quite rare for the D.Tel which is usually on its game.
The only thing which Trump and Corbyn, perhaps, have in common is the very thing Janet Daley so sneers at. What she calls 'amateurism' is actually the very anti-establishment wave which will see Trump win the White House and which helped see Britain Brexit. We're sick and tired of sneering journalists telling us what to do from their Islington mansions. This is Trump's killer card. He has already, brilliantly, turned the 'I'm with Hillary' motto to 'I'm with You.' It says everything: one is establishment cronyism. The other is groundswell of ordinary, disenfranchised, people who feel left behind by globalisation.
It's interesting that Trump made a point of defending LGBTQ at the GOP convention. That was quite brave given the resistance in the Republican party to such things but there's a logic: any enemy of ISIS is a friend of his, which is also a pitch for the centre and freedom-loving ground. He's smart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3sRAA1o4t0
I think Trump will take down Hillary systematically and viciously. However, he'll probably tone down the really right-wing rhetoric.
Trump will win.
And I predict he will make a very good President: perhaps in the ilk of Ronald Reagan.
That would mean we had effectively remained within the EU as far as trade and movement of people is concerned - we would just have lost our ability to have any influence on EU decisions.
It's possible that we'll slowly edge towards a position where we will be able to chose between two known knowns. Either:
- The new deal, with no say in decisions, or - The new deal, remaining as full members
Well I can't see it.
I don't think anything which lasts only 7 years would be considered acceptable by most people - because 7 years is a very short period of time in the overall scheme of things.
If something is going to be time limited it needs to be long enough that people consider it to be for the foreseeable future - I think that would mean at least 20 years.
That would mean we had effectively remained within the EU as far as trade and movement of people is concerned - we would just have lost our ability to have any influence on EU decisions.
It's possible that we'll slowly edge towards a position where we will be able to chose between two known knowns. Either:
- The new deal, with no say in decisions, or - The new deal, remaining as full members
Well I can't see it.
I don't think anything which lasts only 7 years would be considered acceptable by most people - because 7 years is a very short period of time in the overall scheme of things.
If something is going to be time limited it needs to be long enough that people consider it to be for the foreseeable future - I think that would mean at least 20 years.
This obviously isn't the final agreement but it's the first indication that we will be able to get a deal for the 3.5 freedoms.
There would surely be totally uproar if May agreed to that.
An emergency brake for 7 years and after that a return to complete free movement of people - ie not just labour.
That would mean we had effectively remained within the EU as far as trade and movement of people is concerned - we would just have lost our ability to have any influence on EU decisions.
It's surely inconceivable that people like Davis and Fox would agree to that.
Its a good starting point tho,we keep being told we can't have access to the single market without FoM, but already they have budged, we just need to push them harder and keep negotiating.
Oh and we need to let them know we are prepared to walk away(even if we're not) from the single market to have a strong hand, this time they will take a threat like that seriously unlike with Dave the shittest negotiator.
That would mean we had effectively remained within the EU as far as trade and movement of people is concerned - we would just have lost our ability to have any influence on EU decisions.
It's possible that we'll slowly edge towards a position where we will be able to chose between two known knowns. Either:
- The new deal, with no say in decisions, or - The new deal, remaining as full members
Well I can't see it.
I don't think anything which lasts only 7 years would be considered acceptable by most people - because 7 years is a very short period of time in the overall scheme of things.
If something is going to be time limited it needs to be long enough that people consider it to be for the foreseeable future - I think that would mean at least 20 years.
This obviously isn't the final agreement but it's the first indication that we will be able to get a deal for the 3.5 freedoms.
What are the "3.5 freedoms"?
Never heard the phrase; tried googling it, get a few links but none give a clear definition.
That would mean we had effectively remained within the EU as far as trade and movement of people is concerned - we would just have lost our ability to have any influence on EU decisions.
It's possible that we'll slowly edge towards a position where we will be able to chose between two known knowns. Either:
- The new deal, with no say in decisions, or - The new deal, remaining as full members
As if we have any say at the moment. The euro zone vote increasingly as a block, and since only us Denmark and maybe Sweden have an opt out from joining the euro, we would not have been able build a majority veto in future.
Interesting insight into just how President Trump will operate when he wins (~30%) in 4months time.
That Janet Daley article you linked is such lazy, sloppy, journalism: quite rare for the D.Tel which is usually on its game.
The only thing which Trump and Corbyn, perhaps, have in common is the very thing Janet Daley so sneers at. What she calls 'amateurism' is actually the very anti-establishment wave which will see Trump win the White House and which helped see Britain Brexit. We're sick and tired of sneering journalists telling us what to do from their Islington mansions. This is Trump's killer card. He has already, brilliantly, turned the 'I'm with Hillary' motto to 'I'm with You.' It says everything: one is establishment cronyism. The other is groundswell of ordinary, disenfranchised, people who feel left behind by globalisation.
It's interesting that Trump made a point of defending LGBTQ at the GOP convention. That was quite brave given the resistance in the Republican party to such things but there's a logic: any enemy of ISIS is a friend of his, which is also a pitch for the centre and freedom-loving ground. He's smart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3sRAA1o4t0
I think Trump will take down Hillary systematically and viciously. However, he'll probably tone down the really right-wing rhetoric.
Trump will win.
And I predict he will make a very good President: perhaps in the ilk of Ronald Reagan.
The passage I quoted was from the NewYorkTimes via the DT.
Did the DT's "lazy, sloppy, journalism" misquote them?
That would mean we had effectively remained within the EU as far as trade and movement of people is concerned - we would just have lost our ability to have any influence on EU decisions.
It's possible that we'll slowly edge towards a position where we will be able to chose between two known knowns. Either:
- The new deal, with no say in decisions, or - The new deal, remaining as full members
Well I can't see it.
I don't think anything which lasts only 7 years would be considered acceptable by most people - because 7 years is a very short period of time in the overall scheme of things.
If something is going to be time limited it needs to be long enough that people consider it to be for the foreseeable future - I think that would mean at least 20 years.
This obviously isn't the final agreement but it's the first indication that we will be able to get a deal for the 3.5 freedoms.
What are the "3.5 freedoms"?
Never heard the phrase; tried googling it, get a few links but none give a clear definition.
It's just an expression people have been coining to mean the four freedoms but with restrictions on freedom of movement - something which the official position of the EU says is impossible.
That would mean we had effectively remained within the EU as far as trade and movement of people is concerned - we would just have lost our ability to have any influence on EU decisions.
It's possible that we'll slowly edge towards a position where we will be able to chose between two known knowns. Either:
- The new deal, with no say in decisions, or - The new deal, remaining as full members
Well I can't see it.
I don't think anything which lasts only 7 years would be considered acceptable by most people - because 7 years is a very short period of time in the overall scheme of things.
If something is going to be time limited it needs to be long enough that people consider it to be for the foreseeable future - I think that would mean at least 20 years.
This obviously isn't the final agreement but it's the first indication that we will be able to get a deal for the 3.5 freedoms.
What are the "3.5 freedoms"?
Never heard the phrase; tried googling it, get a few links but none give a clear definition.
Four freedoms he means, 3.5 because we will get some control on free movement.
That would mean we had effectively remained within the EU as far as trade and movement of people is concerned - we would just have lost our ability to have any influence on EU decisions.
It's possible that we'll slowly edge towards a position where we will be able to chose between two known knowns. Either:
- The new deal, with no say in decisions, or - The new deal, remaining as full members
Well I can't see it.
I don't think anything which lasts only 7 years would be considered acceptable by most people - because 7 years is a very short period of time in the overall scheme of things.
If something is going to be time limited it needs to be long enough that people consider it to be for the foreseeable future - I think that would mean at least 20 years.
This obviously isn't the final agreement but it's the first indication that we will be able to get a deal for the 3.5 freedoms.
What are the "3.5 freedoms"?
Never heard the phrase; tried googling it, get a few links but none give a clear definition.
It's just an expression people have been coining to mean the four freedoms but with restrictions on freedom of movement - something which the official position of the EU says is impossible.
I'm referring to the whole article Shiny that you linked, hence my 'that article' opening.
Sloppy, lazy, journalism.
So, was this quote incorrect?
""The New York Times reported last week that when Ohio governor John Kasich was approached by Trump’s son as a potential vice-presidential running mate, he was told that the vice-president in a Trump White House would be responsible for domestic and foreign policy. So what, he asked, would President Trump be responsible for? “For making America great again,” was the breezy reply. ""
I'm referring to the whole article Shiny that you linked, hence my 'that article' opening.
Sloppy, lazy, journalism.
So, was this quote incorrect?
""The New York Times reported last week that when Ohio governor John Kasich was approached by Trump’s son as a potential vice-presidential running mate, he was told that the vice-president in a Trump White House would be responsible for domestic and foreign policy. So what, he asked, would President Trump be responsible for? “For making America great again,” was the breezy reply. ""
Comments
What is your alternative theory?
My favorite obscure word is prorogue.
Because it probably should....
Trump will just embrace it and double-down on being the candidate who can turn Russia into an ally to take on the threat of Islamic terrorism.
By the way, as a (second language) German speaker, my least favourite borrowed word is Zeitgeist. I've never heard it pronounced correctly by an English speaker!
Manafort, for one, is a gift that will keep on giving.
I see - Ich sehe
I saw - Ich sah
I have seen - Ich habe gesehen
Of course Latin had a case system like modern German and unlike modern Romance languages so you need to be careful comparing characteristics of languages as they're spoken today to understand their origins.
Try a construction like 'Ich bekomme mein Kind nicht zum Schlafen'. It's (almost) exactly the same as English and very different from the French - 'Je n'arrive pas à faire dormir mon enfant'.
Vice President Pence better hit the ground running..
"The New York Times reported last week that when Ohio governor John Kasich was approached by Trump’s son as a potential vice-presidential running mate, he was told that the vice-president in a Trump White House would be responsible for domestic and foreign policy. So what, he asked, would President Trump be responsible for? “For making America great again,” was the breezy reply. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/23/donald-trump-and-jeremy-corbyn-are-warning-signs-that-something/
And that's just reps close to the Dutch and Italian govs, and the Commission.
And after 4weeks..
DavidDs approach is going to be walkover: "There will be No FoM. Now, what are you going to offer in return for a continuing preferential share our massive trade deficit?"
Dave (and the federasts) really were *useless* negotiators.
An emergency brake for 7 years and after that a return to complete free movement of people - ie not just labour.
That would mean we had effectively remained within the EU as far as trade and movement of people is concerned - we would just have lost our ability to have any influence on EU decisions.
It's surely inconceivable that people like Davis and Fox would agree to that.
- The new deal, with no say in decisions, or
- The new deal, remaining as full members
The only thing which Trump and Corbyn, perhaps, have in common is the very thing Janet Daley so sneers at. What she calls 'amateurism' is actually the very anti-establishment wave which will see Trump win the White House and which helped see Britain Brexit. We're sick and tired of sneering journalists telling us what to do from their Islington mansions. This is Trump's killer card. He has already, brilliantly, turned the 'I'm with Hillary' motto to 'I'm with You.' It says everything: one is establishment cronyism. The other is groundswell of ordinary, disenfranchised, people who feel left behind by globalisation.
It's interesting that Trump made a point of defending LGBTQ at the GOP convention. That was quite brave given the resistance in the Republican party to such things but there's a logic: any enemy of ISIS is a friend of his, which is also a pitch for the centre and freedom-loving ground. He's smart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3sRAA1o4t0
I think Trump will take down Hillary systematically and viciously. However, he'll probably tone down the really right-wing rhetoric.
Trump will win.
And I predict he will make a very good President: perhaps in the ilk of Ronald Reagan.
I don't think anything which lasts only 7 years would be considered acceptable by most people - because 7 years is a very short period of time in the overall scheme of things.
If something is going to be time limited it needs to be long enough that people consider it to be for the foreseeable future - I think that would mean at least 20 years.
Oh and we need to let them know we are prepared to walk away(even if we're not) from the single market to have a strong hand, this time they will take a threat like that seriously unlike with Dave the shittest negotiator.
Never heard the phrase; tried googling it, get a few links but none give a clear definition.
Did the DT's "lazy, sloppy, journalism" misquote them?
http://www.europeanpolicy.org/en/european-policies/single-market.html
Freedom of movement, capital, goods and services.
Sloppy, lazy, journalism.
""The New York Times reported last week that when Ohio governor John Kasich was approached by Trump’s son as a potential vice-presidential running mate, he was told that the vice-president in a Trump White House would be responsible for domestic and foreign policy. So what, he asked, would President Trump be responsible for? “For making America great again,” was the breezy reply. ""
So the world didn't end over night, I was beginning to wonder after the last few weeks.