As a mild republican I think queens should have royal yachts. What's the point of the monarchy if they aren't monarchical and go in for a bit of bling?
But the idea that Britannia sails into foreign ports, the Queen charms the local despot over G&Ts on a barmy evening on deck and said potentate signs up there and then for a Free Trade Agreement, where his fleabitten territory has to import Austin Allegro cars at zero tariffs, surely must be the weirdest of Brexit weirdness.
Has anyone seen a Free Trade Agreement? They run to more than a thousand pages, each of which is haggled to death by armies of civil servants, lawyers and politicians.
Quite, Britannia is mainly about Boris getting a boat and fluffing his own ego. Unless Dyson and JCB stump up the cost, a new yacht isn't getting built.
Good to have you back.Doesn't seem much wrong with your braincells. Did you have any luck with the medical journals btw?
Plato thinks she knows America because she follows the tinfoil hat twittermob and bingewatches US boxed sets.
America is an amazingly diverse country with many varied peoples and strands of thought, but she is only interested in one strand. We can only speculate as to why.
I've made progress with the medical research thanks to a poster on here and a friend's uni library card, and so far it appears I am unique. I'm the only person I've been able to find that has had this operation done. Distinctly odd ...
(Cue jokes about lobotomies. For clarity, it was on my ankle.)
As for my braincells: my short-term memory's getting better, but it occasionally performs a hard reset. The headaches are still here, and my mental arithmetic is still appalling. Current thinking is that the meningitis might have upset an undiagnosed injury I had from my fall in Scotland last year.
I went to a Jean Michel Jarre concert at the O2 on Friday night. It was great, but perhaps not the best show for me to go to. I spent almost all Saturday in bed ....
As a mild republican I think queens should have royal yachts. What's the point of the monarchy if they aren't monarchical and go in for a bit of bling?
But the idea that Britannia sails into foreign ports, the Queen charms the local despot over G&Ts on a barmy evening on deck and said potentate signs up there and then for a Free Trade Agreement, where his fleabitten territory has to import Austin Allegro cars at zero tariffs, surely must be the weirdest of Brexit weirdness.
Has anyone seen a Free Trade Agreement? They run to more than a thousand pages, each of which is haggled to death by armies of civil servants, lawyers and politicians.
Quite, Britannia is mainly about Boris getting a boat and fluffing his own ego. Unless Dyson and JCB stump up the cost, a new yacht isn't getting built.
When the old yacht got decommissioned in 1997 or 98, wasn't there a scheme put forward by some businessman for the public to fund a replacement? ISTR the Queen vetoed it, but that might be wrong, and there might have been more to it than that.
Edit: thinking about it more, the businessmen's scheme might have come a few years later?
Good to have you back.Doesn't seem much wrong with your braincells. Did you have any luck with the medical journals btw?
Plato thinks she knows America because she follows the tinfoil hat twittermob and bingewatches US boxed sets.
America is an amazingly diverse country with many varied peoples and strands of thought, but she is only interested in one strand. We can only speculate as to why.
Excuse me?
I've spent time there and watched thousands of hours of local news and programming.
Golly, what a patronising load of nonsense. The more you post - the more superior you become.
Fair enough. If you were a politician making that choice, you'd be setting yourself up for screaming Mail headlines 'MURDERER CAN'T BE EXTRADITED' and blaming it on you.
Clinton could prolong it. That's my main concern about her presidency.
Clinton could start a new war in the Ukraine. That’s my main concern about her presidency.
Trump is quite likely to allow a new war in Korea and is dead keen on a trade war with everyone.
That is my main concern.
Perhaps. But a war in the Ukraine is a more worrisome prospect for Europe.
Ukraine borders directly on the EU.
I have zero confidence that the EU could cope with another massive refugee crisis.
Although there will be a delicious irony in countries like Hungary & Slovakia being overwhelmed with refugees from the Ukraine, and asking the EU for help in re-settling them.
The Ukraine just has the wrong borders, it has too many ethnic russians in the East, The only way to sort it out is a plebiscite.
I agree with that. The Ukraine is unsustainable.
It needs to be broken up.
Unfortunately, it is not clear that it can broken up without a full-scale war. Which is coming.
I would be possible if the Ukrainian govt held a plebiscite and let those areas which wanted to join Russia go. I'm not convinced that would be quite as clear cut as you might think as ethnic russians might prefer some sort of home rule within Ukraine to bad Vald.
However if the borders do get redrawn then it's worth giving the new Ukraine some guarantees of territorial integrity.
The example of the Crimea does not encourage me to believe that either Russia or the Ukraine are sufficiently mature to permit a sensible redrawing of boundaries.
Yes , however I suspect Ukraine could be leant on through a combination of bribes and guaratees to bite the bullet. Vlad will just keep nibbling to up the tension otherwise.
Clinton could prolong it. That's my main concern about her presidency.
Clinton could start a new war in the Ukraine. That’s my main concern about her presidency.
Trump is quite likely to allow a new war in Korea and is dead keen on a trade war with everyone.
That is my main concern.
Perhaps. But a war in the Ukraine is a more worrisome prospect for Europe.
Ukraine borders directly on the EU.
I have zero confidence that the EU could cope with another massive refugee crisis.
Although there will be a delicious irony in countries like Hungary & Slovakia being overwhelmed with refugees from the Ukraine, and asking the EU for help in re-settling them.
The Ukraine just has the wrong borders, it has too many ethnic russians in the East, The only way to sort it out is a plebiscite.
Before Putin invaded I figured a split was inevitable and desirable. But now I think it's impossible,
Plus one is in committee while the other is just showing the opposition benches in the Commons. Weird photo mix.
If you click on it, you can see the rest of the picture.
And they are both debates. MPs had the choice of attending an "Emergency Debate on the Humanitarian catastrophe in Aleppo and Syria", or debating the Royal Yacht
And many more are at the former.
And some will no doubt attend bits of both.
Even for a dumb Remainer internet meme, this is silly.
Good to have you back.Doesn't seem much wrong with your braincells. Did you have any luck with the medical journals btw?
Plato thinks she knows America because she follows the tinfoil hat twittermob and bingewatches US boxed sets.
America is an amazingly diverse country with many varied peoples and strands of thought, but she is only interested in one strand. We can only speculate as to why.
I've made progress with the medical research thanks to a poster on here and a friend's uni library card, and so far it appears I am unique. I'm the only person I've been able to find that has had this operation done. Distinctly odd ...
(Cue jokes about lobotomies. For clarity, it was on my ankle.)
As for my braincells: my short-term memory's getting better, but it occasionally performs a hard reset. The headaches are still here, and my mental arithmetic is still appalling. Current thinking is that the meningitis might have upset an undiagnosed injury I had from my fall in Scotland last year.
I went to a Jean Michel Jarre concert at the O2 on Friday night. It was great, but perhaps not the best show for me to go to. I spent almost all Saturday in bed ....
Oh my! I would have loved to have gone. I thought Revolutions was a fabulous album. (His absolutely high point.)
Clinton could prolong it. That's my main concern about her presidency.
Clinton could start a new war in the Ukraine. That’s my main concern about her presidency.
Trump is quite likely to allow a new war in Korea and is dead keen on a trade war with everyone.
That is my main concern.
Perhaps. But a war in the Ukraine is a more worrisome prospect for Europe.
Ukraine borders directly on the EU.
I have zero confidence that the EU could cope with another massive refugee crisis.
Although there will be a delicious irony in countries like Hungary & Slovakia being overwhelmed with refugees from the Ukraine, and asking the EU for help in re-settling them.
The Ukraine just has the wrong borders, it has too many ethnic russians in the East, The only way to sort it out is a plebiscite.
I agree with that. The Ukraine is unsustainable.
It needs to be broken up.
Unfortunately, it is not clear that it can broken up without a full-scale war. Which is coming.
I would be possible if the Ukrainian govt held a plebiscite and let those areas which wanted to join Russia go. I'm not convinced that would be quite as clear cut as you might think as ethnic russians might prefer some sort of home rule within Ukraine to bad Vlad.
However if the borders do get redrawn then it's worth giving the new Ukraine some guarantees of territorial integrity.
Good to have you back.Doesn't seem much wrong with your braincells. Did you have any luck with the medical journals btw?
Plato thinks she knows America because she follows the tinfoil hat twittermob and bingewatches US boxed sets.
America is an amazingly diverse country with many varied peoples and strands of thought, but she is only interested in one strand. We can only speculate as to why.
I've made progress with the medical research thanks to a poster on here and a friend's uni library card, and so far it appears I am unique. I'm the only person I've been able to find that has had this operation done. Distinctly odd ...
(Cue jokes about lobotomies. For clarity, it was on my ankle.)
As for my braincells: my short-term memory's getting better, but it occasionally performs a hard reset. The headaches are still here, and my mental arithmetic is still appalling. Current thinking is that the meningitis might have upset an undiagnosed injury I had from my fall in Scotland last year.
I went to a Jean Michel Jarre concert at the O2 on Friday night. It was great, but perhaps not the best show for me to go to. I spent almost all Saturday in bed ....
Oh my! I would have loved to have gone. I thought Revolutions was a fabulous album. (His absolutely high point.)
It was great. He's not my favourite artist, but the ticket was free and we were only a dozen or so rows from the front.
Oddly, it wasn't the best light show I've ever seen at a gig (and I've very limited experience), and I thought that was his speciality.
Few people were standing for most of the concert. He played a version of a Pet Shop Boys song, and half the auditorium got up to dance ...
air enough. If you were a politician making that choice, you'd be setting yourself up for screaming Mail headlines 'MURDERER CAN'T BE EXTRADITED' and blaming it on you.
Probably right. I can only imagine the plight of some poor Briton, thinking he was born into the right to a fair trial, rotting away in some foreign jail for months and years.
Clinton could prolong it. That's my main concern about her presidency.
Clinton could start a new war in the Ukraine. That’s my main concern about her presidency.
Trump is quite likely to allow a new war in Korea and is dead keen on a trade war with everyone.
That is my main concern.
Perhaps. But a war in the Ukraine is a more worrisome prospect for Europe.
Ukraine borders directly on the EU.
I have zero confidence that the EU could cope with another massive refugee crisis.
Although there will be a delicious irony in countries like Hungary & Slovakia being overwhelmed with refugees from the Ukraine, and asking the EU for help in re-settling them.
The Ukraine just has the wrong borders, it has too many ethnic russians in the East, The only way to sort it out is a plebiscite.
Ethnicity doesn't really come into it. It's a geopolitical/cultural/sovereignty issue.
Crimea might suggest otherwise.
Not really. There are plenty of ethnic Ukrainians calling the shots for the Kremlin.
Clinton could prolong it. That's my main concern about her presidency.
Clinton could start a new war in the Ukraine. That’s my main concern about her presidency.
Trump is quite likely to allow a new war in Korea and is dead keen on a trade war with everyone.
That is my main concern.
Perhaps. But a war in the Ukraine is a more worrisome prospect for Europe.
Ukraine borders directly on the EU.
I have zero confidence that the EU could cope with another massive refugee crisis.
Although there will be a delicious irony in countries like Hungary & Slovakia being overwhelmed with refugees from the Ukraine, and asking the EU for help in re-settling them.
The Ukraine just has the wrong borders, it has too many ethnic russians in the East, The only way to sort it out is a plebiscite.
I agree with that. The Ukraine is unsustainable.
It needs to be broken up.
Unfortunately, it is not clear that it can broken up without a full-scale war. Which is coming.
I would be possible if the Ukrainian govt held a plebiscite and let those areas which wanted to join Russia go. I'm not convinced that would be quite as clear cut as you might think as ethnic russians might prefer some sort of home rule within Ukraine to bad Vlad.
However if the borders do get redrawn then it's worth giving the new Ukraine some guarantees of territorial integrity.
What, like the Budapest Memorandum?
Yes, our effective abrogation of the Budapest Memorandum is going to have severe long-term consequences.
Minimal - a swing of 1.3% would have had it the other way.
A swing of 1.3% from 51.9 : 48.1 would result in 50.6 : 49.4 , in other words, Leave would still have won. Your maths is even worse than your remoaning.
Clinton could prolong it. That's my main concern about her presidency.
Clinton could start a new war in the Ukraine. That’s my main concern about her presidency.
Trump is quite likely to allow a new war in Korea and is dead keen on a trade war with everyone.
That is my main concern.
Perhaps. But a war in the Ukraine is a more worrisome prospect for Europe.
Ukraine borders directly on the EU.
I have zero confidence that the EU could cope with another massive refugee crisis.
Although there will be a delicious irony in countries like Hungary & Slovakia being overwhelmed with refugees from the Ukraine, and asking the EU for help in re-settling them.
The Ukraine just has the wrong borders, it has too many ethnic russians in the East, The only way to sort it out is a plebiscite.
I agree with that. The Ukraine is unsustainable.
It needs to be broken up.
Unfortunately, it is not clear that it can broken up without a full-scale war. Which is coming.
I would be possible if the Ukrainian govt held a plebiscite and let those areas which wanted to join Russia go. I'm not convinced that would be quite as clear cut as you might think as ethnic russians might prefer some sort of home rule within Ukraine to bad Vald.
However if the borders do get redrawn then it's worth giving the new Ukraine some guarantees of territorial integrity.
The example of the Crimea does not encourage me to believe that either Russia or the Ukraine are sufficiently mature to permit a sensible redrawing of boundaries.
This was the Zhirinovsky plan, floated with the tacit approval of the Kremlin:
Plus one is in committee while the other is just showing the opposition benches in the Commons. Weird photo mix.
If you click on it, you can see the rest of the picture.
And they are both debates. MPs had the choice of attending an "Emergency Debate on the Humanitarian catastrophe in Aleppo and Syria", or debating the Royal Yacht
And many more are at the former. And some will no doubt attend bits of both. Even for a dumb Remainer internet meme, this is silly.
Clinton could prolong it. That's my main concern about her presidency.
Clinton could start a new war in the Ukraine. That’s my main concern about her presidency.
Trump is quite likely to allow a new war in Korea and is dead keen on a trade war with everyone.
That is my main concern.
Perhaps. But a war in the Ukraine is a more worrisome prospect for Europe.
Ukraine borders directly on the EU.
I have zero confidence that the EU could cope with another massive refugee crisis.
Although there will be a delicious irony in countries like Hungary & Slovakia being overwhelmed with refugees from the Ukraine, and asking the EU for help in re-settling them.
The Ukraine just has the wrong borders, it has too many ethnic russians in the East, The only way to sort it out is a plebiscite.
I agree with that. The Ukraine is unsustainable.
It needs to be broken up.
Unfortunately, it is not clear that it can broken up without a full-scale war. Which is coming.
I would be possible if the Ukrainian govt held a plebiscite and let those areas which wanted to join Russia go. I'm not convinced that would be quite as clear cut as you might think as ethnic russians might prefer some sort of home rule within Ukraine to bad Vlad.
However if the borders do get redrawn then it's worth giving the new Ukraine some guarantees of territorial integrity.
What, like the Budapest Memorandum?
Well Ukraine gave up their nukes on basis that nations such as Russia would guarantee their borders. Crimea any one? What will Ukraine give up next? Half their country? Their miltary? Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939?
A different perspective. Been reported on various news sources as well as the linked one:
"Huckabee: "Bed-Wetting Republicans Scared to Death" Trump Will Win"
He said that they're more afraid of Trump threatening "the neat little package of fun” they have going in Washington, D.C.
“Let me tell you something,” Huckabee said. “Here’s a little secret Megyn, a lot of these bed-wetting, hand wringing Republicans, they’re not afraid Donald Trump is going to lose. They’re scared to death he’s going to win. And if he wins he is going to mess up the neat little package of fun they have because they all play to the donor class and Donald Trump is coming to make big changes in the way that these institutions go.”
Clinton could prolong it. That's my main concern about her presidency.
Clinton could start a new war in the Ukraine. That’s my main concern about her presidency.
Trump is quite likely to allow a new war in Korea and is dead keen on a trade war with everyone.
That is my main concern.
Perhaps. But a war in the Ukraine is a more worrisome prospect for Europe.
Ukraine borders directly on the EU.
I have zero confidence that the EU could cope with another massive refugee crisis.
Although there will be a delicious irony in countries like Hungary & Slovakia being overwhelmed with refugees from the Ukraine, and asking the EU for help in re-settling them.
The Ukraine just has the wrong borders, it has too many ethnic russians in the East, The only way to sort it out is a plebiscite.
I agree with that. The Ukraine is unsustainable.
It needs to be broken up.
Unfortunately, it is not clear that it can broken up without a full-scale war. Which is coming.
I would be possible if the Ukrainian govt held a plebiscite and let those areas which wanted to join Russia go. I'm not convinced that would be quite as clear cut as you might think as ethnic russians might prefer some sort of home rule within Ukraine to bad Vlad.
However if the borders do get redrawn then it's worth giving the new Ukraine some guarantees of territorial integrity.
What, like the Budapest Memorandum?
Yes, our effective abrogation of the Budapest Memorandum is going to have severe long-term consequences.
Good to have you back.Doesn't seem much wrong with your braincells. Did you have any luck with the medical journals btw?
Plato thinks she knows America because she follows the tinfoil hat twittermob and bingewatches US boxed sets.
America is an amazingly diverse country with many varied peoples and strands of thought, but she is only interested in one strand. We can only speculate as to why.
Excuse me?
I've spent time there and watched thousands of hours of local news and programming.
Golly, what a patronising load of nonsense. The more you post - the more superior you become.
Clinton could prolong it. That's my main concern about her presidency.
Clinton could start a new war in the Ukraine. That’s my main concern about her presidency.
Trump is quite likely to allow a new war in Korea and is dead keen on a trade war with everyone.
That is my main concern.
Perhaps. But a war in the Ukraine is a more worrisome prospect for Europe.
Ukraine borders directly on the EU.
I have zero confidence that the EU could cope with another massive refugee crisis.
Although there will be a delicious irony in countries like Hungary & Slovakia being overwhelmed with refugees from the Ukraine, and asking the EU for help in re-settling them.
The Ukraine just has the wrong borders, it has too many ethnic russians in the East, The only way to sort it out is a plebiscite.
I agree with that. The Ukraine is unsustainable.
It needs to be broken up.
Unfortunately, it is not clear that it can broken up without a full-scale war. Which is coming.
I would be possible if the Ukrainian govt held a plebiscite and let those areas which wanted to join Russia go. I'm not convinced that would be quite as clear cut as you might think as ethnic russians might prefer some sort of home rule within Ukraine to bad Vald.
However if the borders do get redrawn then it's worth giving the new Ukraine some guarantees of territorial integrity.
The example of the Crimea does not encourage me to believe that either Russia or the Ukraine are sufficiently mature to permit a sensible redrawing of boundaries.
This was the Zhirinovsky plan, floated with the tacit approval of the Kremlin:
Clinton could prolong it. That's my main concern about her presidency.
Clinton could start a new war in the Ukraine. That’s my main concern about her presidency.
Trump is quite likely to allow a new war in Korea and is dead keen on a trade war with everyone.
That is my main concern.
Perhaps. But a war in the Ukraine is a more worrisome prospect for Europe.
Ukraine borders directly on the EU.
I have zero confidence that the EU could cope with another massive refugee crisis.
Although there will be a delicious irony in countries like Hungary & Slovakia being overwhelmed with refugees from the Ukraine, and asking the EU for help in re-settling them.
The Ukraine just has the wrong borders, it has too many ethnic russians in the East, The only way to sort it out is a plebiscite.
I agree with that. The Ukraine is unsustainable.
It needs to be broken up.
Unfortunately, it is not clear that it can broken up without a full-scale war. Which is coming.
I would be possible if the Ukrainian govt held a plebiscite and let those areas which wanted to join Russia go. I'm not convinced that would be quite as clear cut as you might think as ethnic russians might prefer some sort of home rule within Ukraine to bad Vlad.
However if the borders do get redrawn then it's worth giving the new Ukraine some guarantees of territorial integrity.
What, like the Budapest Memorandum?
Yes, our effective abrogation of the Budapest Memorandum is going to have severe long-term consequences.
Somebody broke the terms of the Memorandum, yes.
The country which invaded Ukraine...
Sadly, the other signatories did as well, as the memorandum included security assurances. At least AFACIR.
It'll make 'fixing' the Ukraine issues harder, and make it even less likely that nations can be persuaded to unilaterally disarm in the future.
Sadly, the other signatories did as well, as the memorandum included security assurances. At least AFACIR.
It'll make 'fixing' the Ukraine issues harder, and make it even less likely that nations can be persuaded to unilaterally disarm in the future.
That's putting it too strongly. The analogy would be Scotland giving up 'its' nukes after voting for independence. It's not a typical situation and isn't really to do with disarmament.
CapX has a brilliant essay by Graham Brady on the glaring injustices already wrought by the European Arrest Warrant, injustices which UK citizens will thankfully soon be no longer exposed to.
Possibly they won't be exposed to it. But I wouldn't count on it - we need some extradition arrangement with our EU friends, and it's almost certainly the only deal on offer. It's going to be incredibly hard to get anything different agreed - they won't want to make a special arrangement just for us. I think we should probably aim at signing into it but with a UK court escape hatch for specific cases.
We could simply state that a British citizen can only be extradited if the country seeking the extradition makes out a prima facie case (this to be determined according to English law) that the person concerned has committed an offence which is both an offence in the state making the request and in Britain. (There are other conditions we could impose but these two seem critical to me.) That does not need an agreement with the whole of the EU. It needs only a law in Britain. If the state making the request meets the requirements of UK law, the extradition goes ahead. If not, it doesn't.
Good to have you back.Doesn't seem much wrong with your braincells. Did you have any luck with the medical journals btw?
Plato thinks she knows America because she follows the tinfoil hat twittermob and bingewatches US boxed sets.
America is an amazingly diverse country with many varied peoples and strands of thought, but she is only interested in one strand. We can only speculate as to why.
Excuse me?
I've spent time there and watched thousands of hours of local news and programming.
Golly, what a patronising load of nonsense. The more you post - the more superior you become.
Bless! Spending ones days seeking confirmation bias within the deeper recesses and safest spaces of tinfoilhattery must be a hard path to row. If only I didn't have to go to work...
Sadly, the other signatories did as well, as the memorandum included security assurances. At least AFACIR.
It'll make 'fixing' the Ukraine issues harder, and make it even less likely that nations can be persuaded to unilaterally disarm in the future.
That's putting it too strongly. The analogy would be Scotland giving up 'its' nukes after voting for independence. It's not a typical situation and isn't really to do with disarmament.
For instance: assume Pakistan realises that it cannot afford nukes, or keep them secure. They face a threat (from their perspective) from nuclear-armed India next door, which also has much larger conventional forces.
They could ask the other major powers for assurances that they will reign in India (just as Russia was the threat against Ukraine, Belarussia etc). But it is now clear that such assurances are as dust.
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
But they were Soviet nuclear weapons, not Ukrainian. Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union. To spread the weapons around between Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others would have been proliferation, not the status quo.
A different perspective. Been reported on various news sources as well as the linked one:
"Huckabee: "Bed-Wetting Republicans Scared to Death" Trump Will Win"
He said that they're more afraid of Trump threatening "the neat little package of fun” they have going in Washington, D.C.
“Let me tell you something,” Huckabee said. “Here’s a little secret Megyn, a lot of these bed-wetting, hand wringing Republicans, they’re not afraid Donald Trump is going to lose. They’re scared to death he’s going to win. And if he wins he is going to mess up the neat little package of fun they have because they all play to the donor class and Donald Trump is coming to make big changes in the way that these institutions go.”
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
But they were Soviet nuclear weapons, not Ukrainian. Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union. To spread the weapons around between Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others would have been proliferation, not the status quo.
The point isn't about proliferation, it's the fact that the West's guaranteeing of territorial integrity actually means nothing.
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
But they were Soviet nuclear weapons, not Ukrainian. Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union. To spread the weapons around between Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others would have been proliferation, not the status quo.
The point isn't about proliferation, it's the fact that the West's guaranteeing of territorial integrity actually means nothing.
The defence of 'He's a foreigner, he cannot hate foreigners' should be consigned to the same dustbin (some might think of it as a 'liberal dustbin') as phrases like 'only whites can be racist' or 'only men can be sexist'.
Though I'm certain this is not the case for Hannan, it's perfectly possible to be a foreigner and hate other foreigners. As an example (of dislike, not hatred): a friend of mine is originally from an EU country, and she voted for Brexit because too many people from her birth country were entering and getting free housing ...
I don't know what's happened to you re illness - but your post re me are really odd.
Perhaps, better to ignore them entirely. I wish you and family well.
Plato, it is nothing to do with my illness, and it's slightly odd that you keep on mentioning it, as if I've somehow changed. Perhaps you ought to consider if you're the one with an issue, rather than me.
I also fail to see why you take my post above as an attack on you: it seems perfectly sensible, does it not? I would have made it (and indeed have made a similar point in the past) to other posters.
It'll be a shame if you put me on ignore. We've got on well in the past.
Thanks for the well wishes.
You were a congenial chap - and then became rather passive aggressive - you started before 0630 today as an example.
It's something you've done for weeks and didn't before - hence I presume it's you're illness. Either way - just ignore my posts - rubbishing me before 0630 looks odd for merely expressing my opinion.
Again, you mention my illness!
I suggest you look at yourself, rather than looking for flaws in others. Perhaps we should take this to PM?
As for before 06.30: I'm a morning person, and I had the morning shift when the little 'un awoke early. And I was quite happy.
Be careful, Josias. The morning shift on here is a dark, dangerous and weird place.
That said, it seems to go on all bloody day nowadays.
He just cannot take it back , likes to give it out but big jessie when it is returned.
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
But they were Soviet nuclear weapons, not Ukrainian. Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union. To spread the weapons around between Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others would have been proliferation, not the status quo.
AIUI, under the terms of the split of the USSR, the nukes would remain on the territory they were on, as would much other military kit that would form the basis of the new national armies.
A few years back Russia purchased some old ?Blackjack? bombers from the Ukraine, that ISTR had only flown a few times since the split.
As the £ continues its inexorable decline and the world outside the brexit bubble votes with its cash, my holiday in Oz this Xmas is becoming rather more costly than planned.
New Year in Margaret River but will I be able to afford s bottle of cab sauv?
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
But they were Soviet nuclear weapons, not Ukrainian. Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union. To spread the weapons around between Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others would have been proliferation, not the status quo.
The point isn't about proliferation, it's the fact that the West's guaranteeing of territorial integrity actually means nothing.
Given that it means nothing, what's the point in clinging to the sacred cow of NATO when abolishing it would allow a completely new and more constructive relationship with Russia?
We could simply state that a British citizen can only be extradited if the country seeking the extradition makes out a prima facie case (this to be determined according to English law) that the person concerned has committed an offence which is both an offence in the state making the request and in Britain. (There are other conditions we could impose but these two seem critical to me.) That does not need an agreement with the whole of the EU. It needs only a law in Britain. If the state making the request meets the requirements of UK law, the extradition goes ahead. If not, it doesn't.
I agree that those are highly desirable, but you don't seem to have understood the point. Extradition agreements are exactly that - agreements. No agreement, no extraditions, in either direction. So, yes, of course it will require the consent of our EU friends if we want to impose conditions on the extradition arrangements we have with them.
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
But they were Soviet nuclear weapons, not Ukrainian. Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union. To spread the weapons around between Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others would have been proliferation, not the status quo.
The point isn't about proliferation, it's the fact that the West's guaranteeing of territorial integrity actually means nothing.
Given that it means nothing, what's the point in clinging to the sacred cow of NATO when abolishing it would allow a completely new and more constructive relationship with Russia?
We could just hand them the Baltic states on a platter.
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
But they were Soviet nuclear weapons, not Ukrainian. Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union. To spread the weapons around between Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others would have been proliferation, not the status quo.
The point isn't about proliferation, it's the fact that the West's guaranteeing of territorial integrity actually means nothing.
Given that it means nothing, what's the point in clinging to the sacred cow of NATO when abolishing it would allow a completely new and more constructive relationship with Russia?
We could just hand them the Baltic states on a platter.
And the evidence that such a gift would be welcome is...?
The pound fallen a further two cents today against the dollar. There doesn't seem to be a floor in sight.
At this rate the fall may become half the fall we had in 92 or 08. We can only hope it continues.
If we bring about the worst that hard brexit can do by threatening it, the EU have little left in their punishment locker when it comes to the negotiations.
The defence of 'He's a foreigner, he cannot hate foreigners' should be consigned to the same dustbin (some might think of it as a 'liberal dustbin') as phrases like 'only whites can be racist' or 'only men can be sexist'.
Though I'm certain this is not the case for Hannan, it's perfectly possible to be a foreigner and hate other foreigners. As an example (of dislike, not hatred): a friend of mine is originally from an EU country, and she voted for Brexit because too many people from her birth country were entering and getting free housing ...
I don't know what's happened to you re illness - but your post re me are really odd.
Perhaps, better to ignore them entirely. I wish you and family well.
Plato, it is nothing to do with my illness, and it's slightly odd that you keep on mentioning it, as if I've somehow changed. Perhaps you ought to consider if you're the one with an issue, rather than me.
I also fail to see why you take my post above as an attack on you: it seems perfectly sensible, does it not? I would have made it (and indeed have made a similar point in the past) to other posters.
It'll be a shame if you put me on ignore. We've got on well in the past.
Thanks for the well wishes.
You were a congenial chap - and then became rather passive aggressive - you started before 0630 today as an example.
It's something you've done for weeks and didn't before - hence I presume it's you're illness. Either way - just ignore my posts - rubbishing me before 0630 looks odd for merely expressing my opinion.
Again, you mention my illness!
I suggest you look at yourself, rather than looking for flaws in others. Perhaps we should take this to PM?
As for before 06.30: I'm a morning person, and I had the morning shift when the little 'un awoke early. And I was quite happy.
Be careful, Josias. The morning shift on here is a dark, dangerous and weird place.
That said, it seems to go on all bloody day nowadays.
He just cannot take it back , likes to give it out but big jessie when it is returned.
Eliza, you really need to get your programming checked. Your output isn't particularly intelligible. Are the first years are still too drunken to code you properly?
The pound fallen a further two cents today against the dollar. There doesn't seem to be a floor in sight.
At this rate the fall may become half the fall we had in 92 or 08. We can only hope it continues.
If we bring about the worst that hard brexit can do by threatening it, the EU have little left in their punishment locker when it comes to the negotiations.
Great. I propose a national strike until Corbyn is asked to form a government. That'll show Brussels we mean business!
The pound fallen a further two cents today against the dollar. There doesn't seem to be a floor in sight.
At this rate the fall may become half the fall we had in 92 or 08. We can only hope it continues.
Why do you want to return to 1992 or 2008? I remember both very well. 1992 was a deep recession with unemployment hitting 11% - the second highest level since the great depression of the 1930's .In 2008 the capitalist system had a heart attack.
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
But they were Soviet nuclear weapons, not Ukrainian. Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union. To spread the weapons around between Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others would have been proliferation, not the status quo.
The point isn't about proliferation, it's the fact that the West's guaranteeing of territorial integrity actually means nothing.
Given that it means nothing, what's the point in clinging to the sacred cow of NATO when abolishing it would allow a completely new and more constructive relationship with Russia?
We could just hand them the Baltic states on a platter.
And the evidence that such a gift would be welcome is...?
PS, they're not ours to give.
And Russia dont want them, other than perhaps a little of Lithuanias southern tip to give a land bridge to East Prussia.
CapX has a brilliant essay by Graham Brady on the glaring injustices already wrought by the European Arrest Warrant, injustices which UK citizens will thankfully soon be no longer exposed to.
Possibly they won't be exposed to it. But I wouldn't count on it - we need some extradition arrangement with our EU friends, and it's almost certainly the only deal on offer. It's going to be incredibly hard to get anything different agreed - they won't want to make a special arrangement just for us. I think we should probably aim at signing into it but with a UK court escape hatch for specific cases.
We could simply state that a British citizen can only be extradited if the country seeking the extradition makes out a prima facie case (this to be determined according to English law) that the person concerned has committed an offence which is both an offence in the state making the request and in Britain. (There are other conditions we could impose but these two seem critical to me.) That does not need an agreement with the whole of the EU. It needs only a law in Britain. If the state making the request meets the requirements of UK law, the extradition goes ahead. If not, it doesn't.
Sensible. We could do with Dominic Raab inside Govt IMHO.
Good to have you back.Doesn't seem much wrong with your braincells. Did you have any luck with the medical journals btw?
Plato thinks she knows America because she follows the tinfoil hat twittermob and bingewatches US boxed sets.
America is an amazingly diverse country with many varied peoples and strands of thought, but she is only interested in one strand. We can only speculate as to why.
Excuse me?
I've spent time there and watched thousands of hours of local news and programming.
Golly, what a patronising load of nonsense. The more you post - the more superior you become.
Bless! Spending ones days seeking confirmation bias within the deeper recesses and safest spaces of tinfoilhattery must be a hard path to row. If only I didn't have to go to work...
When you can comment with my knowledge level - I'll accept. Being a silly no-knowledge nitwit really doesn't cut it. You look like a berk.
Seriously, when picking posts to reply to - this wasn't one.
The pound fallen a further two cents today against the dollar. There doesn't seem to be a floor in sight.
At this rate the fall may become half the fall we had in 92 or 08. We can only hope it continues.
Why do you want to return to 1992 or 2008? I remember both very well. 1992 was a deep recession with unemployment hitting 11% - the second highest level since the great depression of the 1930's .In 2008 the capitalist system had a heart attack.
LOL
1. 1992 when the people who know best overvalued the currency and our friends in the Bundesbank wouldnt bail them out
2. 2008 when the people who know best created a banking monster which devoured them
We could simply state that a British citizen can only be extradited if the country seeking the extradition makes out a prima facie case (this to be determined according to English law) that the person concerned has committed an offence which is both an offence in the state making the request and in Britain. (There are other conditions we could impose but these two seem critical to me.) That does not need an agreement with the whole of the EU. It needs only a law in Britain. If the state making the request meets the requirements of UK law, the extradition goes ahead. If not, it doesn't.
I agree that those are highly desirable, but you don't seem to have understood the point. Extradition agreements are exactly that - agreements. No agreement, no extraditions, in either direction. So, yes, of course it will require the consent of our EU friends if we want to impose conditions on the extradition arrangements we have with them.
Given that Ms Cyclefree was only talking about extraditions from our shores, there would be no agreement of any foreign power needed to change our approach. Others would come to terms with our approach - or not.
Tbh I think we should impose her frightfully sensible terms on all extradition requests from our shores.
The pound fallen a further two cents today against the dollar. There doesn't seem to be a floor in sight.
At this rate the fall may become half the fall we had in 92 or 08. We can only hope it continues.
Why do you want to return to 1992 or 2008? I remember both very well. 1992 was a deep recession with unemployment hitting 11% - the second highest level since the great depression of the 1930's .In 2008 the capitalist system had a heart attack.
LOL
1. 1992 when the people who know best overvalued the currency and our friends in the Bundesbank wouldnt bail them out
2. 2008 when the people who know best created a banking monster which devoured them
Maybe, but you haven't answered why we would actually choose this, this time round. Maybe you know best
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
But they were Soviet nuclear weapons, not Ukrainian. Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union. To spread the weapons around between Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others would have been proliferation, not the status quo.
The reason why the west forced those ex-soviet states to give their nukes back to russia was simple.
A. To avoid them falling into the hands of terrorists on the black market. B. In the early 90's there was a very real possibility of a general war between ex-soviet states that would have turned nuclear.
Yeltsin almost invaded Ukraine in 1993 over guess what, Crimea. In 1993 there where also wars in Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Chechnya, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, it was a mess and it still is.
The pound fallen a further two cents today against the dollar. There doesn't seem to be a floor in sight.
At this rate the fall may become half the fall we had in 92 or 08. We can only hope it continues.
Why do you want to return to 1992 or 2008? I remember both very well. 1992 was a deep recession with unemployment hitting 11% - the second highest level since the great depression of the 1930's .In 2008 the capitalist system had a heart attack.
LOL
1. 1992 when the people who know best overvalued the currency and our friends in the Bundesbank wouldnt bail them out
2. 2008 when the people who know best created a banking monster which devoured them
Maybe, but you haven't answered why we would actually choose this, this time round. Maybe you know best
it was chosen for us by Mr Cameron
if its a screw up you can console yourself that it cost him his job
We could simply state that a British citizen can only be extradited if the country seeking the extradition makes out a prima facie case (this to be determined according to English law) that the person concerned has committed an offence which is both an offence in the state making the request and in Britain. (There are other conditions we could impose but these two seem critical to me.) That does not need an agreement with the whole of the EU. It needs only a law in Britain. If the state making the request meets the requirements of UK law, the extradition goes ahead. If not, it doesn't.
I agree that those are highly desirable, but you don't seem to have understood the point. Extradition agreements are exactly that - agreements. No agreement, no extraditions, in either direction. So, yes, of course it will require the consent of our EU friends if we want to impose conditions on the extradition arrangements we have with them.
I understand the point perfectly well.
You can have an extradition treaty much like the EAW or the treaty we have with the US. I do not like the EAW because it excludes these two (to me) critical requirements and because it makes the (again, to me) erroneous assumption that the criminal legal and judicial systems in European countries are all much of a muchness. If we have a treaty then we have to get agreement.
But you do not need to have an extradition treaty at all. That is the point you are missing.
We can simply set out in English law the circumstances under which we will extradite British citizens and what conditions the requesting state must comply with. A requesting state, whether it is Italy or the Congo or Albania can seek extradition and the matter will be determined according to our laws. It is slow and cumbersome; it is the position which obtained before states entered into treaties to speed up the process. But in matters of criminal law, in matters pertaining to the freedoms and liberties of British citizens I value matters such as habeas corpus, the onus on the state to make out a prima facie case of an offence having been committed and the restraints which are placed on states by us having a requirement that people cannot be arrested for matters which are not crimes here rather highly.
The EAW makes things easier because it views the whole process as a purely bureaucratic matter. Provided the right forms are filled in correctly, a person gets arrested and shipped off regardless of any other consideration. Bureaucratic ease does not, IMO, trump the requirements of justice.
Given that Ms Cyclefree was only talking about extraditions from our shores, there would be no agreement of any foreign power needed to change our approach. Others would come to terms with our approach - or not.
Sure, we can unilaterally break existing treaties. Or refuse to sign new ones.
I presume you are not so arrogant that you seriously suggest we should do either.
A different perspective. Been reported on various news sources as well as the linked one:
"Huckabee: "Bed-Wetting Republicans Scared to Death" Trump Will Win"
He said that they're more afraid of Trump threatening "the neat little package of fun” they have going in Washington, D.C.
“Let me tell you something,” Huckabee said. “Here’s a little secret Megyn, a lot of these bed-wetting, hand wringing Republicans, they’re not afraid Donald Trump is going to lose. They’re scared to death he’s going to win. And if he wins he is going to mess up the neat little package of fun they have because they all play to the donor class and Donald Trump is coming to make big changes in the way that these institutions go.”
The pound fallen a further two cents today against the dollar. There doesn't seem to be a floor in sight.
At this rate the fall may become half the fall we had in 92 or 08. We can only hope it continues.
Why do you want to return to 1992 or 2008? I remember both very well. 1992 was a deep recession with unemployment hitting 11% - the second highest level since the great depression of the 1930's .In 2008 the capitalist system had a heart attack.
LOL
1. 1992 when the people who know best overvalued the currency and our friends in the Bundesbank wouldnt bail them out
2. 2008 when the people who know best created a banking monster which devoured them
Maybe, but you haven't answered why we would actually choose this, this time round. Maybe you know best
it was chosen for us by Mr Cameron
if its a screw up you can console yourself that it cost him his job
You mean because Mr Cameron offered us a pistol and people like yourself (AFAIK) chose to shoot ourselves in the head? I accept Mr Cameron holds SOME responsibility.
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
But they were Soviet nuclear weapons, not Ukrainian. Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union. To spread the weapons around between Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others would have been proliferation, not the status quo.
The reason why the west forced those ex-soviet states to give their nukes back to russia was simple.
A. To avoid them falling into the hands of terrorists on the black market. B. In the early 90's there was a very real possibility of a general war between ex-soviet states that would have turned nuclear.
Yeltsin almost invaded Ukraine in 1993 over guess what, Crimea. In 1993 there where also wars in Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Chechnya, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, it was a mess and it still is.
Russia under Yeltsin possibly going to invade Ukraine in 1993: that's a new one for me. Evidence?
We could simply state that a British citizen can only be extradited if the country seeking the extradition makes out a prima facie case (this to be determined according to English law) that the person concerned has committed an offence which is both an offence in the state making the request and in Britain. (There are other conditions we could impose but these two seem critical to me.) That does not need an agreement with the whole of the EU. It needs only a law in Britain. If the state making the request meets the requirements of UK law, the extradition goes ahead. If not, it doesn't.
I agree that those are highly desirable, but you don't seem to have understood the point. Extradition agreements are exactly that - agreements. No agreement, no extraditions, in either direction. So, yes, of course it will require the consent of our EU friends if we want to impose conditions on the extradition arrangements we have with them.
I understand the point perfectly well.
You can have an extradition treaty much like the EAW or the treaty we have with the US. I do not like the EAW because it excludes these two (to me) critical requirements and because it makes the (again, to me) erroneous assumption that the criminal legal and judicial systems in European countries are all much of a muchness. If we have a treaty then we have to get agreement.
But you do not need to have an extradition treaty at all. That is the point you are missing.
We can simply set out in English law the circumstances under which we will extradite British citizens and what conditions the requesting state must comply with. A requesting state, whether it is Italy or the Congo or Albania can seek extradition and the matter will be determined according to our laws. It is slow and cumbersome; it is the position which obtained before states entered into treaties to speed up the process. But in matters of criminal law, in matters pertaining to the freedoms and liberties of British citizens I value matters such as habeas corpus, the onus on the state to make out a prima facie case of an offence having been committed and the restraints which are placed on states by us having a requirement that people cannot be arrested for matters which are not crimes here rather highly.
The EAW makes things easier because it views the whole process as a purely bureaucratic matter. Provided the right forms are filled in correctly, a person gets arrested and shipped off regardless of any other consideration. Bureaucratic ease does not, IMO, trump the requirements of justice.
I agree. The EAW is an utter disgrace and one reason I want out regardless of the economic consequences.
The US extradition treaty is little better though and I hope something will be done about that before too long.
A different perspective. Been reported on various news sources as well as the linked one:
"Huckabee: "Bed-Wetting Republicans Scared to Death" Trump Will Win"
He said that they're more afraid of Trump threatening "the neat little package of fun” they have going in Washington, D.C.
“Let me tell you something,” Huckabee said. “Here’s a little secret Megyn, a lot of these bed-wetting, hand wringing Republicans, they’re not afraid Donald Trump is going to lose. They’re scared to death he’s going to win. And if he wins he is going to mess up the neat little package of fun they have because they all play to the donor class and Donald Trump is coming to make big changes in the way that these institutions go.”
im scared as well, having an unhinged lunatic with access to nuclear bombs
Don't vote for Hillary then. Simples.
I mean, I'm not a fan of Hillary either, she's a corporate shill. But if you can provide any hard evidence to support her being an unhinged lunatic I'm all ears!
The pound fallen a further two cents today against the dollar. There doesn't seem to be a floor in sight.
At this rate the fall may become half the fall we had in 92 or 08. We can only hope it continues.
Why do you want to return to 1992 or 2008? I remember both very well. 1992 was a deep recession with unemployment hitting 11% - the second highest level since the great depression of the 1930's .In 2008 the capitalist system had a heart attack.
LOL
1. 1992 when the people who know best overvalued the currency and our friends in the Bundesbank wouldnt bail them out
2. 2008 when the people who know best created a banking monster which devoured them
Maybe, but you haven't answered why we would actually choose this, this time round. Maybe you know best
it was chosen for us by Mr Cameron
if its a screw up you can console yourself that it cost him his job
You mean because Mr Cameron offered us a pistol and people like yourself (AFAIK) chose to shoot ourselves in the head? I accept Mr Cameron holds SOME responsibility.
The Italian referendum remains too close to call. Support for centre-left and M5S also statistically tied. Roll on December 4th...
I think given the unpopularity of Renzi and the bad state of the italian economy, it's a given that NO will win and Renzi will go.
The only legacy that Renzi will leave behind will be his new electoral law which gives a majority to anyone who wins a second round, which of course it will be the M5S.
You can have an extradition treaty much like the EAW or the treaty we have with the US. I do not like the EAW because it excludes these two (to me) critical requirements and because it makes the (again, to me) erroneous assumption that the criminal legal and judicial systems in European countries are all much of a muchness. If we have a treaty then we have to get agreement.
But you do not need to have an extradition treaty at all. That is the point you are missing.
We can simply set out in English law the circumstances under which we will extradite British citizens and what conditions the requesting state must comply with. A requesting state, whether it is Italy or the Congo or Albania can seek extradition and the matter will be determined according to our laws. It is slow and cumbersome; it is the position which obtained before states entered into treaties to speed up the process. But in matters of criminal law, in matters pertaining to the freedoms and liberties of British citizens I value matters such as habeas corpus, the onus on the state to make out a prima facie case of an offence having been committed and the restraints which are placed on states by us having a requirement that people cannot be arrested for matters which are not crimes here rather highly.
The EAW makes things easier because it views the whole process as a purely bureaucratic matter. Provided the right forms are filled in correctly, a person gets arrested and shipped off regardless of any other consideration. Bureaucratic ease does not, IMO, trump the requirements of justice.
All that is fine and dandy, but we might want to extradite alleged criminals from other countries, and, in practice, in the case of the EU countries, it's going to be hard to get agreement outside their existing EAW framework. So I think that anyone expecting Brexit to miraculously solve the problem of the injustices of the EAW (and the even worse injustices of the US extradition treaty) is probably going to be disappointed.
Good to have you back.Doesn't seem much wrong with your braincells. Did you have any luck with the medical journals btw?
Plato thinks she knows America because she follows the tinfoil hat twittermob and bingewatches US boxed sets.
America is an amazingly diverse country with many varied peoples and strands of thought, but she is only interested in one strand. We can only speculate as to why.
Excuse me?
I've spent time there and watched thousands of hours of local news and programming.
Golly, what a patronising load of nonsense. The more you post - the more superior you become.
Bless! Spending ones days seeking confirmation bias within the deeper recesses and safest spaces of tinfoilhattery must be a hard path to row. If only I didn't have to go to work...
When you can comment with my knowledge level - I'll accept. Being a silly no-knowledge nitwit really doesn't cut it. You look like a berk.
Seriously, when picking posts to reply to - this wasn't one.
Having knowledge is fine, but it's critical faculty that counts. I don't see a great deal of the latter in the frankly increasingly deranged froth and wishful thinking that you splurge onto here 16 hours a day.
Given that Ms Cyclefree was only talking about extraditions from our shores, there would be no agreement of any foreign power needed to change our approach. Others would come to terms with our approach - or not.
Sure, we can unilaterally break existing treaties. Or refuse to sign new ones.
I presume you are not so arrogant that you seriously suggest we should do either.
I'm considered enough to realise that several treaties we have do not apply the same standards of British justice to extradition. This is a poor show. Both EAW and US extradition treaties should be repudiated.
Are you so arrogant as to accept that existing Treaties are the best we can do by our citizens?
A different perspective. Been reported on various news sources as well as the linked one:
"Huckabee: "Bed-Wetting Republicans Scared to Death" Trump Will Win"
He said that they're more afraid of Trump threatening "the neat little package of fun” they have going in Washington, D.C.
“Let me tell you something,” Huckabee said. “Here’s a little secret Megyn, a lot of these bed-wetting, hand wringing Republicans, they’re not afraid Donald Trump is going to lose. They’re scared to death he’s going to win. And if he wins he is going to mess up the neat little package of fun they have because they all play to the donor class and Donald Trump is coming to make big changes in the way that these institutions go.”
A different perspective. Been reported on various news sources as well as the linked one:
"Huckabee: "Bed-Wetting Republicans Scared to Death" Trump Will Win"
He said that they're more afraid of Trump threatening "the neat little package of fun” they have going in Washington, D.C.
“Let me tell you something,” Huckabee said. “Here’s a little secret Megyn, a lot of these bed-wetting, hand wringing Republicans, they’re not afraid Donald Trump is going to lose. They’re scared to death he’s going to win. And if he wins he is going to mess up the neat little package of fun they have because they all play to the donor class and Donald Trump is coming to make big changes in the way that these institutions go.”
im scared as well, having an unhinged lunatic with access to nuclear bombs
Don't vote for Hillary then. Simples.
I mean, I'm not a fan of Hillary either, she's a corporate shill. But if you can provide any hard evidence to support her being an unhinged lunatic I'm all ears!
In all seriousness, what evidence do have that Trump is crazy?
He's spent 50yrs in business and debated dozens of times. His style and content unimpressed you - but talking to another audience you don't like isn't insane.
You can have an extradition treaty much like the EAW or the treaty we have with the US. I do not like the EAW because it excludes these two (to me) critical requirements and because it makes the (again, to me) erroneous assumption that the criminal legal and judicial systems in European countries are all much of a muchness. If we have a treaty then we have to get agreement.
But you do not need to have an extradition treaty at all. That is the point you are missing.
We can simply set out in English law the circumstances under which we will extradite British citizens and what conditions the requesting state must comply with. A requesting state, whether it is Italy or the Congo or Albania can seek extradition and the matter will be determined according to our laws. It is slow and cumbersome; it is the position which obtained before states entered into treaties to speed up the process. But in matters of criminal law, in matters pertaining to the freedoms and liberties of British citizens I value matters such as habeas corpus, the onus on the state to make out a prima facie case of an offence having been committed and the restraints which are placed on states by us having a requirement that people cannot be arrested for matters which are not crimes here rather highly.
The EAW makes things easier because it views the whole process as a purely bureaucratic matter. Provided the right forms are filled in correctly, a person gets arrested and shipped off regardless of any other consideration. Bureaucratic ease does not, IMO, trump the requirements of justice.
All that is fine and dandy, but we might want to extradite alleged criminals from other countries, and, in practice, in the case of the EU countries, it's going to be hard to get agreement outside their existing EAW framework. So I think that anyone expecting Brexit to miraculously solve the problem of the injustices of the EAW (and the even worse injustices of the US extradition treaty) is probably going to be disappointed.
It's all just going to be TOO HARD eh? So we might as well roll over and give in?
No wonder you thought Remain would win. You underestimate the pride and fierce independence of the British people. It is why we chose the open sea.
You can have an extradition treaty much like the EAW or the treaty we have with the US. I do not like the EAW because it excludes these two (to me) critical requirements and because it makes the (again, to me) erroneous assumption that the criminal legal and judicial systems in European countries are all much of a muchness. If we have a treaty then we have to get agreement.
But you do not need to have an extradition treaty at all. That is the point you are missing.
We can simply set out in English law the circumstances under which we will extradite British citizens and what conditions the requesting state must comply with. A requesting state, whether it is Italy or the Congo or Albania can seek extradition and the matter will be determined according to our laws. It is slow and cumbersome; it is the position which obtained before states entered into treaties to speed up the process. But in matters of criminal law, in matters pertaining to the freedoms and liberties of British citizens I value matters such as habeas corpus, the onus on the state to make out a prima facie case of an offence having been committed and the restraints which are placed on states by us having a requirement that people cannot be arrested for matters which are not crimes here rather highly.
The EAW makes things easier because it views the whole process as a purely bureaucratic matter. Provided the right forms are filled in correctly, a person gets arrested and shipped off regardless of any other consideration. Bureaucratic ease does not, IMO, trump the requirements of justice.
All that is fine and dandy, but we might want to extradite alleged criminals from other countries, and, in practice, in the case of the EU countries, it's going to be hard to get agreement outside their existing EAW framework. So I think that anyone expecting Brexit to miraculously solve the problem of the injustices of the EAW (and the even worse injustices of the US extradition treaty) is probably going to be disappointed.
It's all just going to be TOO HARD eh? So we might as well roll over and give in?
No wonder you thought Remain would win. You underestimate the pride and fierce independence of the British people. It is why we chose the open sea.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face is evidence of immaturity, not independence.
Given that Ms Cyclefree was only talking about extraditions from our shores, there would be no agreement of any foreign power needed to change our approach. Others would come to terms with our approach - or not.
Sure, we can unilaterally break existing treaties. Or refuse to sign new ones.
I presume you are not so arrogant that you seriously suggest we should do either.
We state that, since we are leaving the EU, we no longer wish to be bound by the EAW. If countries wish to enter new extradition treaties with us, that is fine in principle but we need to have some red lines as to what must be in such treaties for us to be willing to sign them.
(I accept of course that other countries are also entitled to do the same vis-à-vis us and that this might make it harder for us to obtain extradition of people from other countries to our shores. The integrity of the judicial and criminal process and how it affects us here in this country matter a great deal to me, rather more than being congratulated for agreeing to a treaty which does not preserve or undermines the rights we have built up over time in our country.)
Or we do what I suggest which is set out what our requirements are. In our laws.
One might even, were one of a mischievous frame of mind, describe this as taking control and making decisions about our laws in our country.
They where fools for not waiting for the debate and now they are adrift. They will probably end up on Andrew Neil's couch at some point.
Last week you were posting with absolutely certainty that Trump would be removed from the ticket, with or without his cooperation...
Are your sources now adrift too?
Yes they are adrift too.
I said that the RNC would wait for the debate, they were prudent to do so.
Those who where not that prudent, and even bragged about it on Sunday morning, now feel shafted.
By the way, where are these post debate polls you cited earlier that Trump has regained support?
The morning consult poll, it shows almost no difference post-debate compared with the pre-tape situation.
And there are very good signs of stabilization in the tracking polls that is exactly like a sharp V over their period.
It all looks like the debate cancelled the tapes. So Trump is now down by around 5% just like before the tapes, instead of 11-14% in that short period on Friday till Sunday.
Good to have you back.Doesn't seem much wrong with your braincells. Did you have any luck with the medical journals btw?
Plato thinks she knows America because she follows the tinfoil hat twittermob and bingewatches US boxed sets.
America is an amazingly diverse country with many varied peoples and strands of thought, but she is only interested in one strand. We can only speculate as to why.
Excuse me?
I've spent time there and watched thousands of hours of local news and programming.
Golly, what a patronising load of nonsense. The more you post - the more superior you become.
Bless! Spending ones days seeking confirmation bias within the deeper recesses and safest spaces of tinfoilhattery must be a hard path to row. If only I didn't have to go to work...
When you can comment with my knowledge level - I'll accept. Being a silly no-knowledge nitwit really doesn't cut it. You look like a berk.
Seriously, when picking posts to reply to - this wasn't one.
Having knowledge is fine, but it's critical faculty that counts. I don't see a great deal of the latter in the frankly increasingly deranged froth and wishful thinking that you splurge onto here 16 hours a day.
And you consider yourself someone who comments with sagacity?
What pitiful stuff. Ad hom as a response to a fact based question. I'm too engaged in sleep patterns you disagree with as a substitute for an answer. Golly.
You can have an extradition treaty much like the EAW or the treaty we have with the US. I do not like the EAW because it excludes these two (to me) critical requirements and because it makes the (again, to me) erroneous assumption that the criminal legal and judicial systems in European countries are all much of a muchness. If we have a treaty then we have to get agreement.
But you do not need to have an extradition treaty at all. That is the point you are missing.
We can simply set out in English law the circumstances under which we will extradite British citizens and what conditions the requesting state must comply with. A requesting state, whether it is Italy or the Congo or Albania can seek extradition and the matter will be determined according to our laws. It is slow and cumbersome; it is the position which obtained before states entered into treaties to speed up the process. But in matters of criminal law, in matters pertaining to the freedoms and liberties of British citizens I value matters such as habeas corpus, the onus on the state to make out a prima facie case of an offence having been committed and the restraints which are placed on states by us having a requirement that people cannot be arrested for matters which are not crimes here rather highly.
The EAW makes things easier because it views the whole process as a purely bureaucratic matter. Provided the right forms are filled in correctly, a person gets arrested and shipped off regardless of any other consideration. Bureaucratic ease does not, IMO, trump the requirements of justice.
All that is fine and dandy, but we might want to extradite alleged criminals from other countries, and, in practice, in the case of the EU countries, it's going to be hard to get agreement outside their existing EAW framework. So I think that anyone expecting Brexit to miraculously solve the problem of the injustices of the EAW (and the even worse injustices of the US extradition treaty) is probably going to be disappointed.
It's all just going to be TOO HARD eh? So we might as well roll over and give in?
No wonder you thought Remain would win. You underestimate the pride and fierce independence of the British people. It is why we chose the open sea.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face is evidence of immaturity, not independence.
A different perspective. Been reported on various news sources as well as the linked one:
"Huckabee: "Bed-Wetting Republicans Scared to Death" Trump Will Win"
He said that they're more afraid of Trump threatening "the neat little package of fun” they have going in Washington, D.C.
“Let me tell you something,” Huckabee said. “Here’s a little secret Megyn, a lot of these bed-wetting, hand wringing Republicans, they’re not afraid Donald Trump is going to lose. They’re scared to death he’s going to win. And if he wins he is going to mess up the neat little package of fun they have because they all play to the donor class and Donald Trump is coming to make big changes in the way that these institutions go.”
im scared as well, having an unhinged lunatic with access to nuclear bombs
Don't vote for Hillary then. Simples.
I mean, I'm not a fan of Hillary either, she's a corporate shill. But if you can provide any hard evidence to support her being an unhinged lunatic I'm all ears!
In all seriousness, what evidence do have that Trump is crazy?
He's spent 50yrs in business and debated dozens of times. His style and content unimpressed you - but talking to another audience you don't like isn't insane.
Not sure I've ever said he was crazy. However his all round behaviour, towards his rivals, towards people who drop him and most of all towards women lead me to the conclusion he is not fit for the role of POTUS.
As the £ continues its inexorable decline and the world outside the brexit bubble votes with its cash, my holiday in Oz this Xmas is becoming rather more costly than planned.
New Year in Margaret River but will I be able to afford s bottle of cab sauv?
Yes but my exported manufactured goods are getting more lucrative by the day. Nice bonus order from the Far East today ahead of when we expected, good stuff.
I'm with Mervyn King: this is a great chance to reduce the trade deficit, reduce house prices, and raise interest rates.
I'm currently sat in the Netherlands ( on an export sales trip ) about to have a steak at inflated prices courtesy of the £. I deeply couldn't give a monkeys as I know the benefit far outweighs the pain. Thing is it's also ultimately what the country needs as well as me.
You can have an extradition treaty much like the EAW or the treaty we have with the US. I do not like the EAW because it excludes these two (to me) critical requirements and because it makes the (again, to me) erroneous assumption that the criminal legal and judicial systems in European countries are all much of a muchness. If we have a treaty then we have to get agreement.
But you do not need to have an extradition treaty at all. That is the point you are missing.
We can simply set out in English law the circumstances under which we will extradite British citizens and what conditions the requesting state must comply with. A requesting state, whether it is Italy or the Congo or Albania can seek extradition and the matter will be determined according to our laws. It is slow and cumbersome; it is the position which obtained before states entered into treaties to speed up the process. But in matters of criminal law, in matters pertaining to the freedoms and liberties of British citizens I value matters such as habeas corpus, the onus on the state to make out a prima facie case of an offence having been committed and the restraints which are placed on states by us having a requirement that people cannot be arrested for matters which are not crimes here rather highly.
The EAW makes things easier because it views the whole process as a purely bureaucratic matter. Provided the right forms are filled in correctly, a person gets arrested and shipped off regardless of any other consideration. Bureaucratic ease does not, IMO, trump the requirements of justice.
All that is fine and dandy, but we might want to extradite alleged criminals from other countries, and, in practice, in the case of the EU countries, it's going to be hard to get agreement outside their existing EAW framework. So I think that anyone expecting Brexit to miraculously solve the problem of the injustices of the EAW (and the even worse injustices of the US extradition treaty) is probably going to be disappointed.
It's all just going to be TOO HARD eh? So we might as well roll over and give in?
No wonder you thought Remain would win. You underestimate the pride and fierce independence of the British people. It is why we chose the open sea.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face is evidence of immaturity, not independence.
that would sort of depend on what your values are. Since yours are your wallet you arent actually in a position to know how Leavers judge the situation.
Given that Ms Cyclefree was only talking about extraditions from our shores, there would be no agreement of any foreign power needed to change our approach. Others would come to terms with our approach - or not.
Sure, we can unilaterally break existing treaties. Or refuse to sign new ones.
I presume you are not so arrogant that you seriously suggest we should do either.
Belief in the rule of law appears terribly thin on occasion.
The pound fallen a further two cents today against the dollar. There doesn't seem to be a floor in sight.
At this rate the fall may become half the fall we had in 92 or 08. We can only hope it continues.
Why do you want to return to 1992 or 2008? I remember both very well. 1992 was a deep recession with unemployment hitting 11% - the second highest level since the great depression of the 1930's .In 2008 the capitalist system had a heart attack.
1992 presaged one of the longest and most successful booms this country has had in the modern era, until Brown pissed it all up against the wall. It is what followed after 1992 that is good, just like what will follow after this currency fall is also good news.
You can have an extradition treaty much like the EAW or the treaty we have with the US. I do not like the EAW because it excludes these two (to me) critical requirements and because it makes the (again, to me) erroneous assumption that the criminal legal and judicial systems in European countries are all much of a muchness. If we have a treaty then we have to get agreement.
But you do not need to have an extradition treaty at all. That is the point you are missing.
We can simply set out in English law the circumstances under which we will extradite British citizens and what conditions the requesting state must comply with. A requesting state, whether it is Italy or the Congo or Albania can seek extradition and the matter will be determined according to our laws. It is slow and cumbersome; it is the position which obtained before states entered into treaties to speed up the process. But in matters of criminal law, in matters pertaining to the freedoms and liberties of British citizens I value matters such as habeas corpus, the onus on the state to make out a prima facie case of an offence having been committed and the restraints which are placed on states by us having a requirement that people cannot be arrested for matters which are not crimes here rather highly.
The EAW makes things easier because it views the whole process as a purely bureaucratic matter. Provided the right forms are filled in correctly, a person gets arrested and shipped off regardless of any other consideration. Bureaucratic ease does not, IMO, trump the requirements of justice.
All that is fine and dandy, but we might want to extradite alleged criminals from other countries, and, in practice, in the case of the EU countries, it's going to be hard to get agreement outside their existing EAW framework. So I think that anyone expecting Brexit to miraculously solve the problem of the injustices of the EAW (and the even worse injustices of the US extradition treaty) is probably going to be disappointed.
It's all just going to be TOO HARD eh? So we might as well roll over and give in?
No wonder you thought Remain would win. You underestimate the pride and fierce independence of the British people. It is why we chose the open sea.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face is evidence of immaturity, not independence.
that would sort of depend on what your values are. Since yours are your wallet you arent actually in a position to know how Leavers judge the situation.
Pointing out the deluded, self-defeating arguments of the opposing side doesn't tell you anything about what my values are.
You can have an extradition treaty much like the EAW or the treaty we have with the US. I do not like the EAW because it excludes these two (to me) critical requirements and because it makes the (again, to me) erroneous assumption that the criminal legal and judicial systems in European countries are all much of a muchness. If we have a treaty then we have to get agreement.
But you do not need to have an extradition treaty at all. That is the point you are missing.
We can simply set out in English law the circumstances under which we will extradite British citizens and what conditions the requesting state must comply with. A requesting state, whether it is Italy or the Congo or Albania can seek extradition and the matter will be determined according to our laws. It is slow and cumbersome; it is the position which obtained before states entered into treaties to speed up the process. But in matters of criminal law, in matters pertaining to the freedoms and liberties of British citizens I value matters such as habeas corpus, the onus on the state to make out a prima facie case of an offence having been committed and the restraints which are placed on states by us having a requirement that people cannot be arrested for matters which are not crimes here rather highly.
The EAW makes things easier because it views the whole process as a purely bureaucratic matter. Provided the right forms are filled in correctly, a person gets arrested and shipped off regardless of any other consideration. Bureaucratic ease does not, IMO, trump the requirements of justice.
All that is fine and dandy, but we might want to extradite alleged criminals from other countries, and, in practice, in the case of the EU countries, it's going to be hard to get agreement outside their existing EAW framework. So I think that anyone expecting Brexit to miraculously solve the problem of the injustices of the EAW (and the even worse injustices of the US extradition treaty) is probably going to be disappointed.
It's all just going to be TOO HARD eh? So we might as well roll over and give in?
No wonder you thought Remain would win. You underestimate the pride and fierce independence of the British people. It is why we chose the open sea.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face is evidence of immaturity, not independence.
that would sort of depend on what your values are. Since yours are your wallet you arent actually in a position to know how Leavers judge the situation.
Quite. £ bonus aside for me, Remainers are still struggling to grasp it's not about the money.
Comments
(Cue jokes about lobotomies. For clarity, it was on my ankle.)
As for my braincells: my short-term memory's getting better, but it occasionally performs a hard reset. The headaches are still here, and my mental arithmetic is still appalling. Current thinking is that the meningitis might have upset an undiagnosed injury I had from my fall in Scotland last year.
I went to a Jean Michel Jarre concert at the O2 on Friday night. It was great, but perhaps not the best show for me to go to. I spent almost all Saturday in bed ....
Edit: thinking about it more, the businessmen's scheme might have come a few years later?
I've spent time there and watched thousands of hours of local news and programming.
Golly, what a patronising load of nonsense. The more you post - the more superior you become.
And some will no doubt attend bits of both.
Even for a dumb Remainer internet meme, this is silly.
Oddly, it wasn't the best light show I've ever seen at a gig (and I've very limited experience), and I thought that was his speciality.
Few people were standing for most of the concert. He played a version of a Pet Shop Boys song, and half the auditorium got up to dance ...
Probably right. I can only imagine the plight of some poor Briton, thinking he was born into the right to a fair trial, rotting away in some foreign jail for months and years.
Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939?
"Huckabee: "Bed-Wetting Republicans Scared to Death" Trump Will Win"
He said that they're more afraid of Trump threatening "the neat little package of fun” they have going in Washington, D.C.
“Let me tell you something,” Huckabee said. “Here’s a little secret Megyn, a lot of these bed-wetting, hand wringing Republicans, they’re not afraid Donald Trump is going to lose. They’re scared to death he’s going to win. And if he wins he is going to mess up the neat little package of fun they have because they all play to the donor class and Donald Trump is coming to make big changes in the way that these institutions go.”
http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2016/10/11/huckabee-bedwetting-republicans-scared-to-death-trump-will-win-n2230742
The country which invaded Ukraine...
It'll make 'fixing' the Ukraine issues harder, and make it even less likely that nations can be persuaded to unilaterally disarm in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
For instance: assume Pakistan realises that it cannot afford nukes, or keep them secure. They face a threat (from their perspective) from nuclear-armed India next door, which also has much larger conventional forces.
They could ask the other major powers for assurances that they will reign in India (just as Russia was the threat against Ukraine, Belarussia etc). But it is now clear that such assurances are as dust.
It also shows that one of two countries to abandon their fully-developed nuclear weapons (Ukraine, South Africa) has been attacked in a way that would not have happened if they had retained nukes.
A few years back Russia purchased some old ?Blackjack? bombers from the Ukraine, that ISTR had only flown a few times since the split.
Edit: they were Blackjacks, sold by the Ukraine in 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160
New Year in Margaret River but will I be able to afford s bottle of cab sauv?
PS, they're not ours to give.
The Russians had 2 choices:
A. Re-install Yanukovych as the legitimate President.
B. Invade Ukraine at full force and annex it's russian parts.
In the end they failed to do either and lost the war.
Russia moved too slow, and America moved too fast without thinking.
The lesson of that war is if you do invade you should invade to win with everything you got as fast as possible.
The russians have not learned that lesson as you see in Syria.
Heard that before somewhere.
Seriously, when picking posts to reply to - this wasn't one.
1. 1992 when the people who know best overvalued the currency and our friends in the Bundesbank wouldnt bail them out
2. 2008 when the people who know best created a banking monster which devoured them
Tbh I think we should impose her frightfully sensible terms on all extradition requests from our shores.
A. To avoid them falling into the hands of terrorists on the black market.
B. In the early 90's there was a very real possibility of a general war between ex-soviet states that would have turned nuclear.
Yeltsin almost invaded Ukraine in 1993 over guess what, Crimea.
In 1993 there where also wars in Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Chechnya, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, it was a mess and it still is.
if its a screw up you can console yourself that it cost him his job
I'm watching Sky now it's 12=24hrs behind Twitter.
You can have an extradition treaty much like the EAW or the treaty we have with the US. I do not like the EAW because it excludes these two (to me) critical requirements and because it makes the (again, to me) erroneous assumption that the criminal legal and judicial systems in European countries are all much of a muchness. If we have a treaty then we have to get agreement.
But you do not need to have an extradition treaty at all. That is the point you are missing.
We can simply set out in English law the circumstances under which we will extradite British citizens and what conditions the requesting state must comply with. A requesting state, whether it is Italy or the Congo or Albania can seek extradition and the matter will be determined according to our laws. It is slow and cumbersome; it is the position which obtained before states entered into treaties to speed up the process. But in matters of criminal law, in matters pertaining to the freedoms and liberties of British citizens I value matters such as habeas corpus, the onus on the state to make out a prima facie case of an offence having been committed and the restraints which are placed on states by us having a requirement that people cannot be arrested for matters which are not crimes here rather highly.
The EAW makes things easier because it views the whole process as a purely bureaucratic matter. Provided the right forms are filled in correctly, a person gets arrested and shipped off regardless of any other consideration. Bureaucratic ease does not, IMO, trump the requirements of justice.
I presume you are not so arrogant that you seriously suggest we should do either.
They where fools for not waiting for the debate and now they are adrift.
They will probably end up on Andrew Neil's couch at some point.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/785892773920591872
The Italian referendum remains too close to call. Support for centre-left and M5S also statistically tied. Roll on December 4th...
The US extradition treaty is little better though and I hope something will be done about that before too long.
The only legacy that Renzi will leave behind will be his new electoral law which gives a majority to anyone who wins a second round, which of course it will be the M5S.
Are your sources now adrift too?
a) exchange rate = high
b) FTSE tracker = not so high
I said that the RNC would wait for the debate, they were prudent to do so.
Those who where not that prudent, and even bragged about it on Sunday morning, now feel shafted.
Are you so arrogant as to accept that existing Treaties are the best we can do by our citizens?
He's spent 50yrs in business and debated dozens of times. His style and content unimpressed you - but talking to another audience you don't like isn't insane.
No wonder you thought Remain would win. You underestimate the pride and fierce independence of the British people. It is why we chose the open sea.
(I accept of course that other countries are also entitled to do the same vis-à-vis us and that this might make it harder for us to obtain extradition of people from other countries to our shores. The integrity of the judicial and criminal process and how it affects us here in this country matter a great deal to me, rather more than being congratulated for agreeing to a treaty which does not preserve or undermines the rights we have built up over time in our country.)
Or we do what I suggest which is set out what our requirements are. In our laws.
One might even, were one of a mischievous frame of mind, describe this as taking control and making decisions about our laws in our country.
And there are very good signs of stabilization in the tracking polls that is exactly like a sharp V over their period.
It all looks like the debate cancelled the tapes.
So Trump is now down by around 5% just like before the tapes, instead of 11-14% in that short period on Friday till Sunday.
What pitiful stuff. Ad hom as a response to a fact based question. I'm too engaged in sleep patterns you disagree with as a substitute for an answer. Golly.
I'm with Mervyn King: this is a great chance to reduce the trade deficit, reduce house prices, and raise interest rates.
I'm currently sat in the Netherlands ( on an export sales trip ) about to have a steak at inflated prices courtesy of the £. I deeply couldn't give a monkeys as I know the benefit far outweighs the pain. Thing is it's also ultimately what the country needs as well as me.