Final result from last night Basingstoke Tadley South Con hold 13% swing Con to LD Con 456 LD 342 Lab 88 UKIP 41
Vote share for all November by elections with change from last time fought
Con 37.9% plus 4.9% Lab 26.2% plus 0.6% LDem 17.6% plus 5.1% UKIP 4.5% minus 5.6% Green 3.3% minus 4.7% Nats 9.0% plus 2.4% Others 1.6% minus 2.7%
UKIP continue downward trend and Libdems revival continues. The surprise is an uptick in the Tories share. Might be luck of the draw in seats becoming vacant.
Much ( but not all ) of the Conservative increase this month was in the Scottish by elections where those who do not ignore "parish" by elections would be justified in saying there has been a significant movement to them .
Diverting asteroids and comets into Mars would be much cheaper and easier than other methods; if you plan it right you don't need much delta-V.
I used to believe that as well, until somebody pointed out that to change an asteroid's orbit involves a shitload of delta-v. If you want to send them to Mars you have to change its existing orbit to a rather odd looking one (think spirograph, if you remember them) that intersects with Mars, and that is a ginormous delta-v. Asteroids are in a stable orbit: you can't just nudge them and they go "Woo-hoo! Let's dive towards the Sun!" You need a very big and sustained push. And before you ask, letting off nukes on the surface won't be enough.
Ah, thanks. Is that true for even asteroids with Mars-crossing orbits?
I made the point about nukes on asteroids on here a couple of weeks ago.
Unknown. It may be more productive to focus on comets, as they have water ice and already cross the Martian orbit (but of course the trick is to cross the orbit at the same time as Mars, so - yup - delta-v again). Halley's nucleus is about 80% water ice, so (very ballpark) that's about 2*10^14 kilograms. A thousand kilograms is 1 cubic metre of water, so that's 2*10^11 cubic metres. If we assume the English Channel broadly triangular then it contains approx 0.5*500*250*0.1 cubic kilometres, so that's 0.05*500*250, or 5*5*250, or 6250 cubic kilometers, or 6250*1*10^9 cubic metres, or approx 6*10^12 cubic metres
So.
* The English Channel contains about 6*10^12 cubic metres of water * Halley's comet contains about 2*10^11 cubic metres of water
So to fill the English Channel would take about 30 Halleys.
Hhmph. That's actually not bad. You'd still need to divert a shedload of comets, but now a "shedload" is thousands, not billions. It's still a lot, but now it's moving to something the human species could do, given a couple of centuries/millennia and a blank cheque
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
(a) What's the probability of Article 50 not being triggered by 1/1/18?
(b) If it is, what's the probability of an extension to Britain's membership of the EU being agreed during the Article 50 period?
I'd say the odds on these two are roughly (a) 25% and (b) 40%. That makes the odds of Britain still being in the EU on 1 January 2020 close to the 10/11 offered by Ladbrokes.
Insert your own percentages according to taste.
40% on the second possibility? My understanding is that an extension needs all member states to agree.
Given that- wouldnt we have a better chance of getting a deal within the two years timeframe than extending the deadline? Once we get to extensions... any EU country can hold us over a barrel?
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
Justin124 QC prosecuting.
The defendants at Nuremburg were charged. And tried, their acts in some cases found to be illegal.
Final result from last night Basingstoke Tadley South Con hold 13% swing Con to LD Con 456 LD 342 Lab 88 UKIP 41
Vote share for all November by elections with change from last time fought
Con 37.9% plus 4.9% Lab 26.2% plus 0.6% LDem 17.6% plus 5.1% UKIP 4.5% minus 5.6% Green 3.3% minus 4.7% Nats 9.0% plus 2.4% Others 1.6% minus 2.7%
UKIP continue downward trend and Libdems revival continues. The surprise is an uptick in the Tories share. Might be luck of the draw in seats becoming vacant.
Good results in Scotland will have boosted the Tory average vote share.
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
Justin124 QC prosecuting.
The defendants at Nuremburg were charged. And tried, their acts in some cases found to be illegal.
But were they lawfully charged? It was pretty well a stitch up by the Victors. Friesler's People Court was not much worse.
Diverting asteroids and comets into Mars would be much cheaper and easier than other methods; if you plan it right you don't need much delta-V.
I used to believe that as well, until somebody pointed out that to change an asteroid's orbit involves a shitload of delta-v. If you want to send them to Mars you have to change its existing orbit to a rather odd looking one (think spirograph, if you remember them) that intersects with Mars, and that is a ginormous delta-v. Asteroids are in a stable orbit: you can't just nudge them and they go "Woo-hoo! Let's dive towards the Sun!" You need a very big and sustained push. And before you ask, letting off nukes on the surface won't be enough.
Ah, thanks. Is that true for even asteroids with Mars-crossing orbits?
I made the point about nukes on asteroids on here a couple of weeks ago.
Unknown. It may be more productive to focus on comets, as they have water ice and already cross the Martian orbit (but of course the trick is to cross the orbit at the same time as Mars, so - yup - delta-v again). Halley's nucleus is about 80% water ice, so (very ballpark) that's about 2*10^14 kilograms. A thousand kilograms is 1 cubic metre of water, so that's 2*10^11 cubic metres. If we assume the English Channel broadly triangular then it contains approx 0.5*500*250*0.1 cubic kilometres, so that's 0.05*500*250, or 5*5*250, or 6250 cubic kilometers, or 6250*1*10^9 cubic metres, or approx 6*10^12 cubic metres
So.
* The English Channel contains about 6*10^12 cubic metres of water * Halley's comet contains about 2*10^11 cubic metres of water
So to fill the English Channel would take about 30 Halleys.
Hhmph. That's actually not bad. You'd still need to divert a shedload of comets, but now a "shedload" is thousands, not billions. It's still a lot, but now it's moving to something the human species could do, given a couple of centuries/millennia and a blank cheque
I love your maths, and your use of English Channels as a comparator. Beats London busses!
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
Of course you can. You can be tried for murder, and successfully defend yourself on the basis it was self defence. The killing was therefore "potentially" illegal.
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
I'm pretty sure none of the Nuremburg defendants were charged with "we're not sure but we think something might have happened". My point was that there has to be a charge and GIN1138 wanted a trial without one. Weirdly enough, his was a very inquisitorial position...and hence very French in that respect.
First time poster (be gentle). Thinking about a post-negotiation 2nd referendum. A sensible government might offer 3 options on an AV basis. 1 Accept terms as negotiated. 2 WTO (hard Brexit). 3 Negotiate to stay in. This would allow headbangers on both sides to vent. It would also give the greatest chance of the measure being passed (ie, govt terms finish in top 2, win on transfers). It would also show there is no majority for staying in, or for fantasy total isolation from EU, thus diminishing charges of "betrayal", by establishing a new will of the people. It would settle the issue and allow sensible Leavers and Remainers to unite, isolate the nutters and deal with some of the genuine problems we have. Long way from here to there though.
What happens with option 3 if the EU refuse it?
The ball would be back in the EU's court. This could happen anyway with any potential referendum 2. My argument is that an AV vote would be the easiest way to get a reasonable deal passed.
BIT of a dogs dinner then wouldn't.
UK: We want to leave EU: OK, leave UK: Eerrr can we stay instead EU: No
Then what?
The whole Brexit thing's a dog's dinner. Option (3) wouldn't be "negotiate to stay in", It would be "continue with EU membership on current terms". If the EU doesn't agree, fall back to the second choice: (1) deal as negotiated or (2) hard Brexit.
It could work but I'm not sure what problem this second referendum would be solving. Presumably we are hoping for "(1) negotiated terms" that are better than both (3) continued membership of the EU and the (2) no deal default.
If we decide that the (1) negotiated terms are worse than (3) EU membership, the first referendum is moot and it would be simpler to run the question again, "Do you wish to remain in the EU?".
If we decide the (1) negotiated terms are even worse than (2) no deal, but still better than (3) EU membership, option (2), becomes option (1), our preferred exit choice.
A second referendum could play the same role as the first... In that it helps the conservative PM resolve an internal party dispute.
If we assume that the EU is not going to give us everything we want for free... Then it seems likely that whatever deal is arrived at will split the conservative party and divide her government.
As a remainer implementing leave... May is very vulnerable. She may find that giving the hardvore brexiteers the chance to make their case satisfies them- particularly if she promises to be neutral/more neutral than David Cameron was.
I don't think the third option of continuing should be on the ballot. That ship has sailed.
Hearing unconfirmed and potentially fictitious rumours that a second referendum ballot paper would be two stage. Only those who are able to define what an avocado is would have their vote count.
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
I'm pretty sure none of the Nuremburg defendants were charged with "we're not sure but we think something might have happened". My point was that there has to be a charge and GIN1138 wanted a trial without one. Weirdly enough, his was a very inquisitorial position...and hence very French in that respect.
But it was a Tribunal set up by the Allies which had no legal standing which then proceeded to charge people on the basis of retrospective law which the victors had invented and dictated. It could reasonably be argued that the Allies showed less restraint than the Nazis post Fall of France in 1940. Daladier and Reynaud were not put on trial - never mind executed.
Final result from last night Basingstoke Tadley South Con hold 13% swing Con to LD Con 456 LD 342 Lab 88 UKIP 41
Vote share for all November by elections with change from last time fought
Con 37.9% plus 4.9% Lab 26.2% plus 0.6% LDem 17.6% plus 5.1% UKIP 4.5% minus 5.6% Green 3.3% minus 4.7% Nats 9.0% plus 2.4% Others 1.6% minus 2.7%
UKIP continue downward trend and Libdems revival continues. The surprise is an uptick in the Tories share. Might be luck of the draw in seats becoming vacant.
So +5.1% is a "revival" and +4.9% is "lucky vacancies"
The whole Brexit thing is like a gross miscarriage of justice...we all know that we have done the wrong thing (unless you are a loony), and yet the countdown to the execution continues.
Major- the tyranny of the majority. Good old John...I love it....
Somebody else who hates the basic principles of democracy.
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
Of course you can. You can be tried for murder, and successfully defend yourself on the basis it was self defence. The killing was therefore "potentially" illegal.
No. You're confusing "was a law broken?" with "was there a law to break?". Your example was the former, Gin's example was the latter.
Final result from last night Basingstoke Tadley South Con hold 13% swing Con to LD Con 456 LD 342 Lab 88 UKIP 41
Vote share for all November by elections with change from last time fought
Con 37.9% plus 4.9% Lab 26.2% plus 0.6% LDem 17.6% plus 5.1% UKIP 4.5% minus 5.6% Green 3.3% minus 4.7% Nats 9.0% plus 2.4% Others 1.6% minus 2.7%
UKIP continue downward trend and Libdems revival continues. The surprise is an uptick in the Tories share. Might be luck of the draw in seats becoming vacant.
There should be an uptick. The current GE VI Tory share is in the low 40s. When the by-election seats were last fought, the Con share was probably around 30 (or 37 for those contested in 2015).
Hearing unconfirmed and potentially fictitious rumours that a second referendum ballot paper would be two stage. Only those who are able to define what an avocado is would have their vote count.
Well that would rule out Lord Mandelson, who can't tell the difference between guacamole and mushy peas.
The whole Brexit thing's a dog's dinner. Option (3) wouldn't be "negotiate to stay in", It would be "continue with EU membership on current terms". If the EU doesn't agree, fall back to the second choice: (1) deal as negotiated or (2) hard Brexit.
It could work but I'm not sure what problem this second referendum would be solving. Presumably we are hoping for "(1) negotiated terms" that are better than both (3) continued membership of the EU and the (2) no deal default.
If we decide that the (1) negotiated terms are worse than (3) EU membership, the first referendum is moot and it would be simpler to run the question again, "Do you wish to remain in the EU?".
If we decide the (1) negotiated terms are even worse than (2) no deal, but still better than (3) EU membership, option (2), becomes option (1), our preferred exit choice.
A second referendum could play the same role as the first... In that it helps the conservative PM resolve an internal party dispute.
If we assume that the EU is not going to give us everything we want for free... Then it seems likely that whatever deal is arrived at will split the conservative party and divide her government.
As a remainer implementing leave... May is very vulnerable. She may find that giving the hardvore brexiteers the chance to make their case satisfies them- particularly if she promises to be neutral/more neutral than David Cameron was.
I don't think the third option of continuing should be on the ballot. That ship has sailed.
But then what's the point of a referendum that chooses between a negotiated settlement, even a very poor one, and crashing out with no settlement at all? The basic aim of negotiations is to get something that's better than the default.
"The Court does not typically publish detailed reasons for decisions on applications to intervene. In broad terms, decisions on allowing interventions are made based on the standing of those applying in relation to the case, with particular weight given to applications from public interest bodies; consideration is also given to the extent to which applications raise points not already being covered by the existing parties."
So presumably Lawyers for Britain are raising different arguments from the government.
As those who click on the link will see, the Supreme Court has already allowed the following parties to intervene as well:
•The Lord Advocate, Scottish Government •The Counsel General for Wales, Welsh Government •The 'Expat Interveners', George Birnie and Others •The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain
The Attorney General for Northern Ireland had the right to intervene regarding devolution issues so didn't need permission and will be doing so.
You mean it wasn't the similarity to a coup that meant they called it off?!
Yeah, we're dealing with the people who wanted to remove the French words from our passports, ignoring the fact passport originates from French, mon Dieu
I see @MaxPB has called my a Traitor. I think this particularly word goes beyond PB rough and tumble and needs challenging. It's really very simple. We're a Democracy. They'll be approx. 2 years 9 months between the Referendum result and us finally leaving the EU. What ever the legalities for practical purposes it will be possible not to leave right up to the point we actually do leave. The referendum result was decisive but quite close. It's possible voters will change their minds before we leave. If they do the democratic thing would be not to leave. If they don't we should and I don't don't we will leave. Indeed we are leaving. Numerous processes are already in train.
In a Democracy campaigning to change minds isn't traitorous it's the essence of democracy.
@MaxPB is clearly very clever so his repeated falsehoods about our Rebate and how the Commission President is appointment seems to be lies rather than errors. Perhaps his desire to label political opponents Traitors is part of this pathology.
Or it may simply be that like so many Brexiters he is rattled. After the Brexit Devaluation, the Sovereign Rating downgrade, the emergency money printing and interest cut, the abandonment of the deficit target , the growth downgrades, the secret comfort letter to Nissan and the OBR and IFS assessments all does not look well. The polls show an essential standstill. The direct costs of Brexit to HMG have already hit £500m.
In my view one of ths is enough - yet - to stop Brexit. But the policy vacuum, the Briefing from our negotiating opponents, the perceptible sense of drift...
I am understand exactly why some Brexiters think this could slip from their fingers. But the response to that is to address what's going wrong and face up to how Leave won whch is what the results legitimacy rests on.
Handing out verbal abuse will get you no where. Tick Tock.
You want to block the democratic will of the people in the unelected chamber. That seems like the behaviour of someone who has the interests of the EU rather than the UK in mind. You have previously called yourself a commited EUphile. You support the EU, not this country. Overthrowing a democratic decision with the votes of unelected Lords is traitorous. I note that most other remainers aren't in favour of blocking Brexit like you are.
On the rebate, I was mistaken. Hands up.
It's not traitorous; it's undemocratic. An action is traitorous or not; it cannot be converted from one to the other simply on the basis of who supports or opposes it.
Hearing unconfirmed and potentially fictitious rumours that a second referendum ballot paper would be two stage. Only those who are able to define what an avocado is would have their vote count.
"The Court does not typically publish detailed reasons for decisions on applications to intervene. In broad terms, decisions on allowing interventions are made based on the standing of those applying in relation to the case, with particular weight given to applications from public interest bodies; consideration is also given to the extent to which applications raise points not already being covered by the existing parties."
So presumably Lawyers for Britain are raising different arguments from the government.
As those who click on the link will see, the Supreme Court has already allowed the following parties to intervene as well:
•The Lord Advocate, Scottish Government •The Counsel General for Wales, Welsh Government •The 'Expat Interveners', George Birnie and Others •The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain
The Attorney General for Northern Ireland had the right to intervene regarding devolution issues so didn't need permission and will be doing so.
No wonder they are televising it, some the interested parties ain't getting a seat in the Supreme Court hearing
I see @MaxPB has called my a Traitor. I think this particularly word goes beyond PB rough and tumble and needs challenging. It's really very simple. We're a Democracy. They'll be approx. 2 years 9 months between the Referendum result and us finally leaving the EU. What ever the legalities for practical purposes it will be possible not to leave right up to the point we actually do leave. The referendum result was decisive but quite close. It's possible voters will change their minds before we leave. If they do the democratic thing would be not to leave. If they don't we should and I don't don't we will leave. Indeed we are leaving. Numerous processes are already in train.
In a Democracy campaigning to change minds isn't traitorous it's the essence of democracy.
@MaxPB is clearly very clever so his repeated falsehoods about our Rebate and how the Commission President is appointment seems to be lies rather than errors. Perhaps his desire to label political opponents Traitors is part of this pathology.
Or it may simply be that like so many Brexiters he is rattled. After the Brexit Devaluation, the Sovereign Rating downgrade, the emergency money printing and interest cut, the abandonment of the deficit target , the growth downgrades, the secret comfort letter to Nissan and the OBR and IFS assessments all does not look well. The polls show an essential standstill. The direct costs of Brexit to HMG have already hit £500m.
In my view one of ths is enough - yet - to stop Brexit. But the policy vacuum, the Briefing from our negotiating opponents, the perceptible sense of drift...
I am understand exactly why some Brexiters think this could slip from their fingers. But the response to that is to address what's going wrong and face up to how Leave won whch is what the results legitimacy rests on.
Handing out verbal abuse will get you no where. Tick Tock.
You want to block the democratic will of the people in the unelected chamber. That seems like the behaviour of someone who has the interests of the EU rather than the UK in mind. You have previously called yourself a commited EUphile. You support the EU, not this country. Overthrowing a democratic decision with the votes of unelected Lords is traitorous. I note that most other remainers aren't in favour of blocking Brexit like you are.
On the rebate, I was mistaken. Hands up.
It's not traitorous; it's undemocratic. An action is traitorous or not; it cannot be converted from one to the other simply on the basis of who supports or opposes it.
YS has previously wished for this country to suffer and the EU to succeed post Brexit. I'm sure if he could leak the government's negotiating strategy to Juncker he would.
Diverting asteroids and comets into Mars would be much cheaper and easier than other methods; if you plan it right you don't need much delta-V.
I used to believe that as well, until somebody pointed out that to change an asteroid's orbit involves a shitload of delta-v. If you want to send them to Mars you have to change its existing orbit to a rather odd looking one (think spirograph, if you remember them) that intersects with Mars, and that is a ginormous delta-v. Asteroids are in a stable orbit: you can't just nudge them and they go "Woo-hoo! Let's dive towards the Sun!" You need a very big and sustained push. And before you ask, letting off nukes on the surface won't be enough.
Ah, thanks. Is that true for even asteroids with Mars-crossing orbits?
I made the point about nukes on asteroids on here a couple of weeks ago.
Unknown. It may be more productive to focus on comets, as they have water ice and already cross the Martian orbit (but of course the trick is to cross the orbit at the same time as Mars, so - yup - delta-v again). Halley's nucleus is about 80% water ice, so (very ballpark) that's about 2*10^14 kilograms. A thousand kilograms is 1 cubic metre of water, so that's 2*10^11 cubic metres. If we assume the English Channel broadly triangular then it contains approx 0.5*500*250*0.1 cubic kilometres, so that's 0.05*500*250, or 5*5*250, or 6250 cubic kilometers, or 6250*1*10^9 cubic metres, or approx 6*10^12 cubic metres
So.
* The English Channel contains about 6*10^12 cubic metres of water * Halley's comet contains about 2*10^11 cubic metres of water
So to fill the English Channel would take about 30 Halleys.
Hhmph. That's actually not bad. You'd still need to divert a shedload of comets, but now a "shedload" is thousands, not billions. It's still a lot, but now it's moving to something the human species could do, given a couple of centuries/millennia and a blank cheque
I love your maths, and your use of English Channels as a comparator. Beats London busses!
They certainly don't waste any resources on web design. Their case seems to be that the referendum was binding. I would expect it to be dismissed fairly robustly.
The whole Brexit thing is like a gross miscarriage of justice...we all know that we have done the wrong thing (unless you are a loony), and yet the countdown to the execution continues.
Major- the tyranny of the majority. Good old John...I love it....
Somebody else who hates the basic principles of democracy.
Unfortunately Richard, democracy today is only viable when it agrees the views and beliefs of the holder.
All this bullshit about article 50, is just that, bullshit. Britain could leave the EU tomorrow if we had a government of guts and willing to explain to the voting public, in great detail, the obvious benefits of getting rid of the EU stranglehold on our freedoms and laws.
Now we will have to wait for someone like Marina Le Pen to come to power and make the first moves to grab Brussels by the throat.
Final result from last night Basingstoke Tadley South Con hold 13% swing Con to LD Con 456 LD 342 Lab 88 UKIP 41
Vote share for all November by elections with change from last time fought
Con 37.9% plus 4.9% Lab 26.2% plus 0.6% LDem 17.6% plus 5.1% UKIP 4.5% minus 5.6% Green 3.3% minus 4.7% Nats 9.0% plus 2.4% Others 1.6% minus 2.7%
UKIP continue downward trend and Libdems revival continues. The surprise is an uptick in the Tories share. Might be luck of the draw in seats becoming vacant.
There should be an uptick. The current GE VI Tory share is in the low 40s. When the by-election seats were last fought, the Con share was probably around 30 (or 37 for those contested in 2015).
Absolutely correct. I feel the data as presented is of limited use simply because the by elections held relate to vacancies with different base dates - ie 2013 to 2016. It may be significant - and perhaps surprising - that Labour recorded swings in its favour at both Pendle - despite losing a seat there - and Carlisle compared with last May. Its vote was also up a bit in Somerset where it is not at all competitive.The overall picture does not appear to be compatible with one of Labour freefall - or indeed a very big Tory lead.
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
Justin124 QC prosecuting.
The defendants at Nuremburg were charged. And tried, their acts in some cases found to be illegal.
But were they lawfully charged? It was pretty well a stitch up by the Victors. Friesler's People Court was not much worse.
Nuremburg was legally innovative in many ways. One of the most significant - and one that has a direct bearing on the Article 50 decision - is that no state is utterly sovereign in the decisions that it takes; that whatever constitutional proprieties might be followed internally, international law and justice may still be applied (subject to practical considerations) and may override the authority granted individual actors by the state itself.
The notion of the Crown-in-parliament being absolutely sovereign is out of date.
Mr. Eagles, there is Danegeld, or there is war. Just the message one might expect from trusty allies
Mr. T, if it's French philosophy, your vote counts double
In all future elections and plebiscites the vote shall be restricted to those who earn over £150,000 per year AND change their underwear on a daily basis.
They certainly don't waste any resources on web design. Their case seems to be that the referendum was binding. I would expect it to be dismissed fairly robustly.
It's not traitorous; it's undemocratic. An action is traitorous or not; it cannot be converted from one to the other simply on the basis of who supports or opposes it.
And if the people change their minds then surely the democratic response would be to allow the referendum to be revisited, which is the point Yellow Submarine was making.
(Although I personally don't think it's a good idea)
Mr. Eagles, there is Danegeld, or there is war. Just the message one might expect from trusty allies
Mr. T, if it's French philosophy, your vote counts double
In all future elections and plebiscites the vote shall be restricted to those who earn over £150,000 per year AND change their underwear on a daily basis.
Personally, I’d never trust a lawyer who constantly rummages through his briefs…
Mr. Eagles, there is Danegeld, or there is war. Just the message one might expect from trusty allies
Mr. T, if it's French philosophy, your vote counts double
In all future elections and plebiscites the vote shall be restricted to those who earn over £150,000 per year AND change their underwear on a daily basis.
Edit and also attended a decent university.
TSE - your missed that the vote should also be restricted to those who can properly explain the mandate and responsibilities of the Lord Avocado.
Only those who are able to define what an avocado is would have their vote count.
On the ongoing Red Queen Race between the upper classes and the lower (see Toby Young for an egregious example), the avocado test has been deprecated. It was replaced by knowing how to pronounce feng shui, then it was replaced by knowing how to pronounce quinoa. God alone knows what it is now.
It begs the question whether the transitional arrangement will be within the EU by extending the Article 50 period or outside the EU under a prenegotiated transition. I suggest that the former is much easier to achieve in the time available, though politically tricky for PMTM.
Diverting asteroids and comets into Mars would be much cheaper and easier than other methods; if you plan it right you don't need much delta-V.
I used to believe that as well, until somebody pointed out that to change an asteroid's orbit involves a shitload of delta-v. If you want to send them to Mars you have to change its existing orbit to a rather odd looking one (think spirograph, if you remember them) that intersects with Mars, and that is a ginormous delta-v. Asteroids are in a stable orbit: you can't just nudge them and they go "Woo-hoo! Let's dive towards the Sun!" You need a very big and sustained push. And before you ask, letting off nukes on the surface won't be enough.
Ah, thanks. Is that true for even asteroids with Mars-crossing orbits?
I made the point about nukes on asteroids on here a couple of weeks ago.
Unknown. It may be more productive to focus on comets, as they have water ice and already cross the Martian orbit (but of course the trick is to cross the orbit at the same time as Mars, so - yup - delta-v again). Halley's nucleus is about 80% water ice, so (very ballpark) that's about 2*10^14 kilograms. A thousand kilograms is 1 cubic metre of water, so that's 2*10^11 cubic metres. If we assume the English Channel broadly triangular then it contains approx 0.5*500*250*0.1 cubic kilometres, so that's 0.05*500*250, or 5*5*250, or 6250 cubic kilometers, or 6250*1*10^9 cubic metres, or approx 6*10^12 cubic metres
So.
* The English Channel contains about 6*10^12 cubic metres of water * Halley's comet contains about 2*10^11 cubic metres of water
So to fill the English Channel would take about 30 Halleys.
Hhmph. That's actually not bad. You'd still need to divert a shedload of comets, but now a "shedload" is thousands, not billions. It's still a lot, but now it's moving to something the human species could do, given a couple of centuries/millennia and a blank cheque
Seems to me there's a sci-fi novel in there somewhere:
We move from 'could do' to 'finding a reason to do' to 'doing', believing these comets have no purpose;
... and only when we've destroyed many of them do we discover that the ubiquitous Ancient Civilisation out-there-somewhere values those stupid old comets the way we value the Pyramids or something;
... and we only discover that because they've got fed up and are coming to sort us out good & proper.
It begs the question whether the transitional arrangement will be within the EU by extending the Article 50 period or outside the EU under a prenegotiated transition. I suggest that the former is much easier to achieve in the time available, though politically tricky for PMTM.
I cannot see how the likes of Bill Cash, John Redwood, et al will accept that deal.
It makes a Liam Fox flounce from cabinet nailed on, unless he had to resign in disgrace, again.
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
I'm pretty sure none of the Nuremburg defendants were charged with "we're not sure but we think something might have happened". My point was that there has to be a charge and GIN1138 wanted a trial without one. Weirdly enough, his was a very inquisitorial position...and hence very French in that respect.
But it was a Tribunal set up by the Allies which had no legal standing which then proceeded to charge people on the basis of retrospective law which the victors had invented and dictated. It could reasonably be argued that the Allies showed less restraint than the Nazis post Fall of France in 1940. Daladier and Reynaud were not put on trial - never mind executed.
Revolting, loathsome false equivalence. The Holocaust was unique and demanded a unique form of justice. I think more Nazis should have been hanged.
This country is part of the EU. This country is part of Europe. The real traitors are those who seek to diminish and deny this fact.
Yawn.
The boredom strategy is working already I see.
Actually I admire and enjoy your eloquence - I just get bored when your posts are a collection of fine words signifying the proverbial nothing, as seems to be increasingly the case.
Incidentally, members may recall I briefly had a Tipstr Twitter list. I've just renamed that to Politics etc and added quite a few PBers (I tend to use lists for Twitter, handier than a whole feed).
It begs the question whether the transitional arrangement will be within the EU by extending the Article 50 period or outside the EU under a prenegotiated transition. I suggest that the former is much easier to achieve in the time available, though politically tricky for PMTM.
A transitional arrangement outside the EU would mean all the legal work in the UK needed to take us out would have to be complete so it's probably impractical for that reason too.
If I had to bet I now think the most likely scenario is a 'transitional' deal based on Cameron's agreement that ultimately becomes the status quo. The EU itself will reframe the assumptions about reciprocal benefit entitlements in a way that will help May sell it as a win.
F1: just perusing the practice times. Nothing unexpected at the sharp end. The key may be the start. If Rosberg is first or second into the first corner, I'd expect the title to be his.
It begs the question whether the transitional arrangement will be within the EU by extending the Article 50 period or outside the EU under a prenegotiated transition. I suggest that the former is much easier to achieve in the time available, though politically tricky for PMTM.
I cannot see how the likes of Bill Cash, John Redwood, et al will accept that deal.
It makes a Liam Fox flounce from cabinet nailed on, unless he had to resign in disgrace, again.
Brexit is the Corn Laws de nos jours.
It's really more Corn Law repeal - with the common feature of a few die hards trying to subvert the popular will.
It begs the question whether the transitional arrangement will be within the EU by extending the Article 50 period or outside the EU under a prenegotiated transition. I suggest that the former is much easier to achieve in the time available, though politically tricky for PMTM.
If the prenegotiated transition can be achieved without treaty changes, ie as part of the Article 50 Exit Agreement, that will be the easier one to achieve. The Exit Agreement only requires QMV of the European Council (heads of government) plus ratification by EU Parliament. Article 50 extension requires unanimity of the Council. Article 50 extension also retains a potential threat of the time running out and having to go through the process again. Whereas a prenegotiated agreement could continue until either party decides otherwise.
PS. What will be difficult to achieve is a transition arrangement that is significantly different from what we have already, or different from the default hard Brexit. There isn't the time to negotiate anything much.
It begs the question whether the transitional arrangement will be within the EU by extending the Article 50 period or outside the EU under a prenegotiated transition. I suggest that the former is much easier to achieve in the time available, though politically tricky for PMTM.
A transitional arrangement outside the EU would mean all the legal work in the UK needed to take us out would have to be complete so it's probably impractical for that reason too.
If I had to bet I now think the most likely scenario is a 'transitional' deal based on Cameron's agreement that ultimately becomes the status quo. The EU itself will reframe the assumptions about reciprocal benefit entitlements in a way that will help May sell it as a win.
Seems to me there's a sci-fi novel in there somewhere:
We move from 'could do' to 'finding a reason to do' to 'doing', believing these comets have no purpose;
... and only when we've destroyed many of them do we discover that the ubiquitous Ancient Civilisation out-there-somewhere values those stupid old comets the way we value the Pyramids or something;
... and we only discover that because they've got fed up and are coming to sort us out good & proper.
(edited to add: good afternoon, everyone)
As at the end of 2010, and going into the later (and odd) 3001:
"ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS - EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE."
The various recommendations earlier for Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars trilogy has encouraged me to pick it up off the book shelf.
F1: just perusing the practice times. Nothing unexpected at the sharp end. The key may be the start. If Rosberg is first or second into the first corner, I'd expect the title to be his.
I think there are good odds on Rossy and Hammy clashing, especially if Hammy's behind Rossy.
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
I'm pretty sure none of the Nuremburg defendants were charged with "we're not sure but we think something might have happened". My point was that there has to be a charge and GIN1138 wanted a trial without one. Weirdly enough, his was a very inquisitorial position...and hence very French in that respect.
But it was a Tribunal set up by the Allies which had no legal standing which then proceeded to charge people on the basis of retrospective law which the victors had invented and dictated. It could reasonably be argued that the Allies showed less restraint than the Nazis post Fall of France in 1940. Daladier and Reynaud were not put on trial - never mind executed.
Revolting, loathsome false equivalence. The Holocaust was unique and demanded a unique form of justice. I think more Nazis should have been hanged.</blockquote
Many other Nazis were hanged because of their conduct at concentration camps etc. The atrocities that occurred still did not justify indicting non-political figures such as Jodl, Keitel,Doenitz, Raeder, Schacht on the charge of 'Planning for War'.Nor was it in any sense just to have hanged Streicher for his articles in Der Sturmer - however vile a human being we might consider him to have been.
The whole Brexit thing's a dog's dinner. Option (3) wouldn't be "negotiate to stay in", It would be "continue with EU membership on current terms". If the EU doesn't agree, fall back to the second choice: (1) deal as negotiated or (2) hard Brexit.
It could work but I'm not sure what problem this second referendum would be solving. Presumably we are hoping for "(1) negotiated terms" that are better than both (3) continued membership of the EU and the (2) no deal default.
If we decide that the (1) negotiated terms are worse than (3) EU membership, the first referendum is moot and it would be simpler to run the question again, "Do you wish to remain in the EU?".
If we decide the (1) negotiated terms are even worse than (2) no deal, but still better than (3) EU membership, option (2), becomes option (1), our preferred exit choice.
A second referendum could play the same role as the first... In that it helps the conservative PM resolve an internal party dispute.
If we assume that the EU is not going to give us everything we want for free... Then it seems likely that whatever deal is arrived at will split the conservative party and divide her government.
As a remainer implementing leave... May is very vulnerable. She may find that giving the hardvore brexiteers the chance to make their case satisfies them- particularly if she promises to be neutral/more neutral than David Cameron was.
I don't think the third option of continuing should be on the ballot. That ship has sailed.
But then what's the point of a referendum that chooses between a negotiated settlement, even a very poor one, and crashing out with no settlement at all? The basic aim of negotiations is to get something that's better than the default.
Yes- but better for whom?
And opinions might differ on whether crashing out as you put it is really worse than a negotiated settlement.
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
I'm pretty sure none of the Nuremburg defendants were charged with "we're not sure but we think something might have happened". My point was that there has to be a charge and GIN1138 wanted a trial without one. Weirdly enough, his was a very inquisitorial position...and hence very French in that respect.
But it was a Tribunal set up by the Allies which had no legal standing which then proceeded to charge people on the basis of retrospective law which the victors had invented and dictated. It could reasonably be argued that the Allies showed less restraint than the Nazis post Fall of France in 1940. Daladier and Reynaud were not put on trial - never mind executed.
Revolting, loathsome false equivalence. The Holocaust was unique and demanded a unique form of justice. I think more Nazis should have been hanged.
Those principally responsible for the Holocaust were already dead - Hitler - Himler - Heydrich. Kaltenbrunner alone of those accused at Nuremburg might have been held to have some responsibility too.
Diverting asteroids and comets into Mars would be much cheaper and easier than other methods; if you plan it right you don't need much delta-V.
I used to believe that as well, until somebody pointed out that to change an asteroid's orbit involves a shitload of delta-v. If you want to send them to Mars you have to change its existing orbit to a rather odd looking one (think spirograph, if you remember them) that intersects with Mars, and that is a ginormous delta-v. Asteroids are in a stable orbit: you can't just nudge them and they go "Woo-hoo! Let's dive towards the Sun!" You need a very big and sustained push. And before you ask, letting off nukes on the surface won't be enough.
Ah, thanks. Is that true for even asteroids with Mars-crossing orbits?
I made the point about nukes on asteroids on here a couple of weeks ago.
Unknown. It may be more productive to focus on comets, as they have water ice and already cross the Martian orbit (but of course the trick is to cross the orbit at the same time as Mars, so - yup - delta-v again). Halley's nucleus is about 80% water ice, so (very ballpark) that's about 2*10^14 kilograms. A thousand kilograms is 1 cubic metre of water, so that's 2*10^11 cubic metres. If we assume the English Channel broadly triangular then it contains approx 0.5*500*250*0.1 cubic kilometres, so that's 0.05*500*250, or 5*5*250, or 6250 cubic kilometers, or 6250*1*10^9 cubic metres, or approx 6*10^12 cubic metres
So.
* The English Channel contains about 6*10^12 cubic metres of water * Halley's comet contains about 2*10^11 cubic metres of water
So to fill the English Channel would take about 30 Halleys.
Hhmph. That's actually not bad. You'd still need to divert a shedload of comets, but now a "shedload" is thousands, not billions. It's still a lot, but now it's moving to something the human species could do, given a couple of centuries/millennia and a blank cheque
Interesting maths but it is also why I have always been highly dubious of the suggestion that Comets were the major contributor of water (and hence possibly) life on earth. The quantity of water is just so damn massive you would be talking millions of them, at least if comets were anything like the same size in the early days of the solar system. And why would the earth be the lucky recipient of a disproportionate number?
I can well believe that comets hit the earth and that they provided a source of water. I cannot believe they supplied the Pacific Ocean.
The whole Brexit thing's a dog's dinner. Option (3) wouldn't be "negotiate to stay in", It would be "continue with EU membership on current terms". If the EU doesn't agree, fall back to the second choice: (1) deal as negotiated or (2) hard Brexit.
It could work but I'm not sure what problem this second referendum would be solving. Presumably we are hoping for "(1) negotiated terms" that are better than both (3) continued membership of the EU and the (2) no deal default.
If we decide that the (1) negotiated terms are worse than (3) EU membership, the first referendum is moot and it would be simpler to run the question again, "Do you wish to remain in the EU?".
If we decide the (1) negotiated terms are even worse than (2) no deal, but still better than (3) EU membership, option (2), becomes option (1), our preferred exit choice.
A second referendum could play the same role as the first... In that it helps the conservative PM resolve an internal party dispute.
If we assume that the EU is not going to give us everything we want for free... Then it seems likely that whatever deal is arrived at will split the conservative party and divide her government.
As a remainer implementing leave... May is very vulnerable. She may find that giving the hardvore brexiteers the chance to make their case satisfies them- particularly if she promises to be neutral/more neutral than David Cameron was.
I don't think the third option of continuing should be on the ballot. That ship has sailed.
But then what's the point of a referendum that chooses between a negotiated settlement, even a very poor one, and crashing out with no settlement at all? The basic aim of negotiations is to get something that's better than the default.
Yes- but better for whom?
And opinions might differ on whether crashing out as you put it is really worse than a negotiated settlement.
Maybe. We're talking hypothetically, anyway. Practically speaking, it's impossible for us to leave without negotiating with the EU. Even the so called "WTO rules" will need to be negotiated with the EU, and others. Those negotiations will be a lot harder if we don't have our ducks in a row from previous bilateral negotiations with the EU.
Mr. Jessop, if you believe that'll happen the most obvious bets are along the lines of: Back Rosberg/Hamilton not to be classified Red Bull top score Red Bull drivers each way to win
If we assume that the EU is not going to give us everything we want for free...
This is the essence the problem of a lot of the Brexit negotiation analysis.
It is not the UK being a supplicant, asking for things from the EU. It is a negotiation to find the best way forward for both parties.
I may have misunderstood your point- but would you accept that there are tradeoffs? And that different parts of the Conservative party want different things?
There is no realistic deal that John Redwood and Ken Clarke or Anna Soubry could support. Which in a microcosm is the problem she faces with Brexit negotiations I think.
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
Of course you can. You can be tried for murder, and successfully defend yourself on the basis it was self defence. The killing was therefore "potentially" illegal.
No. You're confusing "was a law broken?" with "was there a law to break?". Your example was the former, Gin's example was the latter.
It was potentially illegal under international law, but I don't know if any tribunal has jurisdiction. I don't see that it is illegal under British law, the Queen can invade whomever she likes for any reason or none.
If we assume that the EU is not going to give us everything we want for free...
This is the essence the problem of a lot of the Brexit negotiation analysis.
It is not the UK being a supplicant, asking for things from the EU. It is a negotiation to find the best way forward for both parties.
I may have misunderstood your point- but would you accept that there are tradeoffs? And that different parts of the Conservative party want different things?
There is no realistic deal that John Redwood and Ken Clarke or Anna Soubry could support. Which in a microcosm is the problem she faces with Brexit negotiations I think.
Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard
He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.
What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?
Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
I'm pretty sure none of the Nuremburg defendants were charged with "we're not sure but we think something might have happened". My point was that there has to be a charge and GIN1138 wanted a trial without one. Weirdly enough, his was a very inquisitorial position...and hence very French in that respect.
But it was a Tribunal set up by the Allies which had no legal standing which then proceeded to charge people on the basis of retrospective law which the victors had invented and dictated. It could reasonably be argued that the Allies showed less restraint than the Nazis post Fall of France in 1940. Daladier and Reynaud were not put on trial - never mind executed.
Revolting, loathsome false equivalence. The Holocaust was unique and demanded a unique form of justice. I think more Nazis should have been hanged.
Many more people died in Mao's China and Stalin's Soviet Union, as a direct result of their policies.
Only those who are able to define what an avocado is would have their vote count.
On the ongoing Red Queen Race between the upper classes and the lower (see Toby Young for an egregious example), the avocado test has been deprecated. It was replaced by knowing how to pronounce feng shui, then it was replaced by knowing how to pronounce quinoa. God alone knows what it is now.
If that's all Macron gives then it could be mid 40s for Le Pen. With no promise of any kind I'd put it at TCTC. It wasn't until I spoke to a few friends from France that I realised just how much anger there is in France wrt to the EU and Euro and my colleague who has gone from raging EUphile to sceptic over the last two years.
The Euro especially seems unpopular - I was surprised i'll admit (speaking as a remainer) talking to my girlfriend's family, and to colleagues, after the Brexit vote, at how many of them were against the Euro, and quite sympathetic to the idea of leaving. Someone else mentioned upthread the difference between elite France's pro-europeanism, and actual France's euroscepticism. Probably the biggest gulf among any member state.
This is all a bit anecdotal. Comparative polls in a series of countries have shown a marked shift to pro-EU sentiment since Brexit, as people recoil from the mess. I've not seen any lately from France, though - in general French polls seems few and far between - so I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see some more hard data.
Polls in France show that is not as Eurosceptic as Italy or Austria, but there is a sizeable - and growing - Euroscepticism. That being said the numbers are still tens of points more pro-EU than the UK, with 'positive perceptions' of the EU being around -25 in the UK and about -5 in France.
This country is part of the EU. This country is part of Europe. The real traitors are those who seek to diminish and deny this fact.
Yawn.
The boredom strategy is working already I see.
Actually I admire and enjoy your eloquence - I just get bored when your posts are a collection of fine words signifying the proverbial nothing, as seems to be increasingly the case.
If we can lease Hong Kong for 99 years, I'd be happy with a 99 year transitional deal that keeps us in the single market and customs union
I'm a free trader, I don't want to be in no customs union. Zero tariffs on all imports should be the starting point.
True, that's why we should extend the customs union as far and as wide as possible.
We need to invite Russia into the EU.
The customs union has big tariff barriers Customs unions are anti-free trade, not pro. I want tariff free trade with the USA, Australia, Canada, India... as well as EU countries
Seems to me there's a sci-fi novel in there somewhere:
We move from 'could do' to 'finding a reason to do' to 'doing', believing these comets have no purpose;
... and only when we've destroyed many of them do we discover that the ubiquitous Ancient Civilisation out-there-somewhere values those stupid old comets the way we value the Pyramids or something;
... and we only discover that because they've got fed up and are coming to sort us out good & proper.
(edited to add: good afternoon, everyone)
As at the end of 2010, and going into the later (and odd) 3001:
"ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS - EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE."
The various recommendations earlier for Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars trilogy has encouraged me to pick it up off the book shelf.
I loved 2001 - mostly for the opening space ballet sequence - but never saw any of the others. I doubt whether that opening sequence would work for audiences now, it's probably much too slow.
The whole Brexit thing's a dog's dinner. Option (3) wouldn't be "negotiate to stay in", It would be "continue with EU membership on current terms". If the EU doesn't agree, fall back to the second choice: (1) deal as negotiated or (2) hard Brexit.
It could work but I'm not sure what problem this second referendum would be solving. Presumably we are hoping for "(1) negotiated terms" that are better than both (3) continued membership of the EU and the (2) no deal default.
If we decide that the (1) negotiated terms are worse than (3) EU membership, the first referendum is moot and it would be simpler to run the question again, "Do you wish to remain in the EU?".
If we decide the (1) negotiated terms are even worse than (2) no deal, but still better than (3) EU membership, option (2), becomes option (1), our preferred exit choice.
A second referendum could play the same role as the first... In that it helps the conservative PM resolve an internal party dispute.
If we assume that the EU is not going to give us everything we want for free... Then it seems likely that whatever deal is arrived at will split the conservative party and divide her government.
As a remainer implementing leave... May is very vulnerable. She may find that giving the hardvore brexiteers the chance to make their case satisfies them- particularly if she promises to be neutral/more neutral than David Cameron was.
I don't think the third option of continuing should be on the ballot. That ship has sailed.
But then what's the point of a referendum that chooses between a negotiated settlement, even a very poor one, and crashing out with no settlement at all? The basic aim of negotiations is to get something that's better than the default.
Yes- but better for whom?
And opinions might differ on whether crashing out as you put it is really worse than a negotiated settlement.
Maybe. We're talking hypothetically, anyway. Practically speaking, it's impossible for us to leave without negotiating with the EU. Even the so called "WTO rules" will need to be negotiated with the EU, and others. Those negotiations will be a lot harder if we don't have our ducks in a row from previous bilateral negotiations with the EU.
Ah okay... I see what you mean. I agree there are loads of things to negotiate even if we are making a hard Brexit.
Interesting as always - Blair is 63, for him to be Prime Minister again would be the biggest comeback since Lazarus. I can't see it though he could be the biggest destabilising force to politics since Roy Jenkins returned from Brussels. He could potentially tear apart three parties (and possibly two more).
I do accept that a referendum on the terms of any negotiated Treaty is and would be incredibly difficult because there has to be a clear plan for the rejection of the Treaty.
IF the treaty was rejected in a referendum, that wouldn't of course imply there was a mandate to re-join the EU but it would mean a re-negotiation of the Brexit terms and could those whose previous efforts had been rejected go back to the EU with any credibility?
Such a rejection would finish Davis, Fox and Johnson politically so wouldn't be entirely without merit but nor would there be any clarity about whether we wanted a harder or softer or simply less half-baked Brexit. It's entirely possible May's Government will serve up a Treaty which no one will like (probably making it coincidentally quite a good deal).
Those who advocate the "second referendum" need to be entirely clear about what a "No" vote would mean in terms of the next steps.
Sort of on topic I have just received our weekly memo. It contains the following request, apparently made by the Scottish Government:
"The Government would like our ideas quickly and we suggest within a couple of weeks. Accordingly, all Stables; all Faculty interest groups; all Associations; all groups of members with a common interest and individual members are invited to submit bullet points or a short paragraph/summary of the essential elements of European legal provision that they consider vital to retain in their own field. Please do not suggest the 1972 Act."
Particularly liked the last bit but I would very much hope Westminster is undertaking similar exercises. Anyone aware of such requests?
Interesting maths but it is also why I have always been highly dubious of the suggestion that Comets were the major contributor of water (and hence possibly) life on earth. The quantity of water is just so damn massive you would be talking millions of them, at least if comets were anything like the same size in the early days of the solar system. And why would the earth be the lucky recipient of a disproportionate number?
I can well believe that comets hit the earth and that they provided a source of water. I cannot believe they supplied the Pacific Ocean.
The answer to that is that other planets had/have water, but have either lost it or hold it in different forms (e.g. sub-surface ice). Hydrogen and oxygen are two of the most common elements in the universe, and water has been found all over the place.
Also, do not underestimate the violence of the early solar system. Not only do we believe an impact of Theia formed the Moon from Earth; Mars might similarly have formed from the remains of an impact on Venus (citation required). Early on in the solar system's development, Jupiter and Saturn voyaged inwards on a grand tack, nearing the orbit of Mars and sending various bodies all over the place. It was an incredibly violent period, and nothing like the relative stability we have now. Who knows how many formative icy bodies were swept up and sent into us by Jupiter and Saturn.
If the theories are right ...
The Earth itself may have lost a large proportion of its water in various ways. Not, sadly, my proposed 'space straw' to such up water to defeat rising sea levels, but I live in hope!
I also like the theory that Earth's had three distinct atmospheres through history, including one of metal vapour ...
No. You're confusing "was a law broken?" with "was there a law to break?". Your example was the former, Gin's example was the latter.
I don't think Tony Blair broke any domestic law with his invasion of Iraq. It is possible his dodgy dossier would have put him behind bars for fraud if it had been a company prospectus, but it wasn't a company prospectus - it was merely the prospectus for the country going to war - so the same requirements for truth don't apply and he is safe.
The Foreign Office counsel resigned because she thought the invasion illegal under international law. I think the issue was that we invaded without an immediate danger to ourselves and without the sanction of the UN. The Attorney General disagreed in a very aggressively argued judgment. In any case international law is notoriously difficult to prosecute against.
If we can lease Hong Kong for 99 years, I'd be happy with a 99 year transitional deal that keeps us in the single market and customs union
I'm a free trader, I don't want to be in no customs union. Zero tariffs on all imports should be the starting point.
True, that's why we should extend the customs union as far and as wide as possible.
We need to invite Russia into the EU.
The customs union has big tariff barriers Customs unions are anti-free trade, not pro. I want tariff free trade with the USA, Australia, Canada, India... as well as EU countries
There is nothing inherently anti-free trade about a customs union, it - like so many things - is what you do with it that matters.
Sort of on topic I have just received our weekly memo. It contains the following request, apparently made by the Scottish Government:
"The Government would like our ideas quickly and we suggest within a couple of weeks. Accordingly, all Stables; all Faculty interest groups; all Associations; all groups of members with a common interest and individual members are invited to submit bullet points or a short paragraph/summary of the essential elements of European legal provision that they consider vital to retain in their own field. Please do not suggest the 1972 Act."
Particularly liked the last bit but I would very much hope Westminster is undertaking similar exercises. Anyone aware of such requests?
Seems contrived to get everything considered "vital"
Interesting maths but it is also why I have always been highly dubious of the suggestion that Comets were the major contributor of water (and hence possibly) life on earth. The quantity of water is just so damn massive you would be talking millions of them, at least if comets were anything like the same size in the early days of the solar system. And why would the earth be the lucky recipient of a disproportionate number?
I can well believe that comets hit the earth and that they provided a source of water. I cannot believe they supplied the Pacific Ocean.
The answer to that is that other planets had/have water, but have either lost it or hold it in different forms (e.g. sub-surface ice). Hydrogen and oxygen are two of the most common elements in the universe, and water has been found all over the place.
Also, do not underestimate the violence of the early solar system. Not only do we believe an impact of Theia formed the Moon from Earth; Mars might similarly have formed from the remains of an impact on Venus (citation required). Early on in the solar system's development, Jupiter and Saturn voyaged inwards on a grand tack, nearing the orbit of Mars and sending various bodies all over the place. It was an incredibly violent period, and nothing like the relative stability we have now. Who knows how many formative icy bodies were swept up and sent into us by Jupiter and Saturn.
If the theories are right ...
The Earth itself may have lost a large proportion of its water in various ways. Not, sadly, my proposed 'space straw' to such up water to defeat rising sea levels, but I live in hope!
I also like the theory that Earth's had three distinct atmospheres through history, including one of metal vapour ...
Sure, more violent. But there is something like 1,386,000,000km3 of water on earth. That is one hell of a lot of comets.
JosiasJessop - well you have to remember that the first facelift of the XJ took 14 years for the nationalised company to approve - didn't Tony Benn have a bunch of commisars running the company - think Geoffry Robinson was one of them, supported Red Robbo of course, and turned up as financial director.
Interesting maths but it is also why I have always been highly dubious of the suggestion that Comets were the major contributor of water (and hence possibly) life on earth. The quantity of water is just so damn massive you would be talking millions of them, at least if comets were anything like the same size in the early days of the solar system. And why would the earth be the lucky recipient of a disproportionate number?
I can well believe that comets hit the earth and that they provided a source of water. I cannot believe they supplied the Pacific Ocean.
The answer to that is that other planets had/have water, but have either lost it or hold it in different forms (e.g. sub-surface ice). Hydrogen and oxygen are two of the most common elements in the universe, and water has been found all over the place.
Also, do not underestimate the violence of the early solar system. Not only do we believe an impact of Theia formed the Moon from Earth; Mars might similarly have formed from the remains of an impact on Venus (citation required). Early on in the solar system's development, Jupiter and Saturn voyaged inwards on a grand tack, nearing the orbit of Mars and sending various bodies all over the place. It was an incredibly violent period, and nothing like the relative stability we have now. Who knows how many formative icy bodies were swept up and sent into us by Jupiter and Saturn.
If the theories are right ...
The Earth itself may have lost a large proportion of its water in various ways. Not, sadly, my proposed 'space straw' to such up water to defeat rising sea levels, but I live in hope!
I also like the theory that Earth's had three distinct atmospheres through history, including one of metal vapour ...
Sure, more violent. But there is something like 1,386,000,000km3 of water on earth. That is one hell of a lot of comets.
Indeed. (*) But the meteorites (and possible asteroids) might not have been the same as things we see today; they might have been much larger, forming at or past the frost line.
Sort of on topic I have just received our weekly memo. It contains the following request, apparently made by the Scottish Government:
"The Government would like our ideas quickly and we suggest within a couple of weeks. Accordingly, all Stables; all Faculty interest groups; all Associations; all groups of members with a common interest and individual members are invited to submit bullet points or a short paragraph/summary of the essential elements of European legal provision that they consider vital to retain in their own field. Please do not suggest the 1972 Act."
Particularly liked the last bit but I would very much hope Westminster is undertaking similar exercises. Anyone aware of such requests?
Seems contrived to get everything considered "vital"
I suspect the Scottish government would be delighted with a very long list of "essential" EU legislation that needs to remain in place making the exit more difficult still. But it is still a worthwhile exercise if you are trying to either draft the Great Reform Bill or indeed set an agenda of what needs to be discussed. I would like to think that the Brexit department is seeking such assistance but I have heard no word of it.
If we can lease Hong Kong for 99 years, I'd be happy with a 99 year transitional deal that keeps us in the single market and customs union
I'm a free trader, I don't want to be in no customs union. Zero tariffs on all imports should be the starting point.
True, that's why we should extend the customs union as far and as wide as possible.
We need to invite Russia into the EU.
The customs union has big tariff barriers Customs unions are anti-free trade, not pro. I want tariff free trade with the USA, Australia, Canada, India... as well as EU countries
The only thing we can do unilaterally is reduce or eliminate our own import tariffs. There is an argument for doing that but generally people are most interested in the duties that others impose on our exports. If we eliminate our own tariffs we throw away our bargaining counter. Other countries will say, we'll take your free tariffs and you can still pay our duties. If we leave the EU customs union and/or the Single Market we will incur tariffs and red tape on exports to our, by far, most important market, when we didn't before.
This talk of meteorites reminds me of a kids' TV show. (May have been simply called Dinosaurs). Very Jim Henson meets The Flintstones.
The dinosaur family house gets destroyed by a meteorite, but they claim for a meteor. As a meteor becomes a meteorite upon entering the atmosphere, the insurance refuses to pay out.
Only those who are able to define what an avocado is would have their vote count.
On the ongoing Red Queen Race between the upper classes and the lower (see Toby Young for an egregious example), the avocado test has been deprecated. It was replaced by knowing how to pronounce feng shui, then it was replaced by knowing how to pronounce quinoa. God alone knows what it is now.
Comments
So.
* The English Channel contains about 6*10^12 cubic metres of water
* Halley's comet contains about 2*10^11 cubic metres of water
So to fill the English Channel would take about 30 Halleys.
Hhmph. That's actually not bad. You'd still need to divert a shedload of comets, but now a "shedload" is thousands, not billions. It's still a lot, but now it's moving to something the human species could do, given a couple of centuries/millennia and a blank cheque
Given that- wouldnt we have a better chance of getting a deal within the two years timeframe than extending the deadline? Once we get to extensions... any EU country can hold us over a barrel?
The defendants at Nuremburg were charged. And tried, their acts in some cases found to be illegal.
If we assume that the EU is not going to give us everything we want for free... Then it seems likely that whatever deal is arrived at will split the conservative party and divide her government.
As a remainer implementing leave... May is very vulnerable. She may find that giving the hardvore brexiteers the chance to make their case satisfies them- particularly if she promises to be neutral/more neutral than David Cameron was.
I don't think the third option of continuing should be on the ballot. That ship has sailed.
Nigel Farage's pro-Brexit march on Supreme Court 'postponed' over fears of far-right hijacking
Leave.EU confirms to IBTimes UK that the demonstration has been called off.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pro-brexit-march-supreme-court-led-by-nigel-farage-postponed-1593471
Hearing unconfirmed and potentially fictitious rumours that a second referendum ballot paper would be two stage. Only those who are able to define what an avocado is would have their vote count.
LOL
The E.C.-popular vote split isn't really about California, Trump won Appalachafornia just as much--AL/MS/LA/AR/OK/TN/KY/WV.
Big picture: the EC/PV gap is more about Trump strength in the Midwest than Clinton strength in California
0 replies . 71 retweets 152 likes
omg!
Two other groups (4A Law and New Europeans) have been refused permission.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/interveners-article-50-brexit-case.html
In the Supreme Court's own words:
"The Court does not typically publish detailed reasons for decisions on applications to intervene. In broad terms, decisions on allowing interventions are made based on the standing of those applying in relation to the case, with particular weight given to applications from public interest bodies; consideration is also given to the extent to which applications raise points not already being covered by the existing parties."
So presumably Lawyers for Britain are raising different arguments from the government.
As those who click on the link will see, the Supreme Court has already allowed the following parties to intervene as well:
•The Lord Advocate, Scottish Government
•The Counsel General for Wales, Welsh Government
•The 'Expat Interveners', George Birnie and Others
•The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain
The Attorney General for Northern Ireland had the right to intervene regarding devolution issues so didn't need permission and will be doing so.
It is not the UK being a supplicant, asking for things from the EU. It is a negotiation to find the best way forward for both parties.
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-binding.shtml
Mr. T, if it's French philosophy, your vote counts double
All this bullshit about article 50, is just that, bullshit. Britain could leave the EU tomorrow if we had a government of guts and willing to explain to the voting public, in great detail, the obvious benefits of getting rid of the EU stranglehold on our freedoms and laws.
Now we will have to wait for someone like Marina Le Pen to come to power and make the first moves to grab Brussels by the throat.
It may be significant - and perhaps surprising - that Labour recorded swings in its favour at both Pendle - despite losing a seat there - and Carlisle compared with last May. Its vote was also up a bit in Somerset where it is not at all competitive.The overall picture does not appear to be compatible with one of Labour freefall - or indeed a very big Tory lead.
The notion of the Crown-in-parliament being absolutely sovereign is out of date.
Edit and also attended a decent university.
(Although I personally don't think it's a good idea)
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/802175564593397760
We need to invite Russia into the EU.
We move from 'could do' to 'finding a reason to do' to 'doing', believing these comets have no purpose;
... and only when we've destroyed many of them do we discover that the ubiquitous Ancient Civilisation out-there-somewhere values those stupid old comets the way we value the Pyramids or something;
... and we only discover that because they've got fed up and are coming to sort us out good & proper.
(edited to add: good afternoon, everyone)
Boom, boom! Ya see what I did there? I'm here all week, folks!
It makes a Liam Fox flounce from cabinet nailed on, unless he had to resign in disgrace, again.
Brexit is the Corn Laws de nos jours.
If I had to bet I now think the most likely scenario is a 'transitional' deal based on Cameron's agreement that ultimately becomes the status quo. The EU itself will reframe the assumptions about reciprocal benefit entitlements in a way that will help May sell it as a win.
PS. What will be difficult to achieve is a transition arrangement that is significantly different from what we have already, or different from the default hard Brexit. There isn't the time to negotiate anything much.
"ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS - EXCEPT EUROPA.
ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE."
The various recommendations earlier for Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars trilogy has encouraged me to pick it up off the book shelf.
And opinions might differ on whether crashing out as you put it is really worse than a negotiated settlement.
I can well believe that comets hit the earth and that they provided a source of water. I cannot believe they supplied the Pacific Ocean.
Back Rosberg/Hamilton not to be classified
Red Bull top score
Red Bull drivers each way to win
And that different parts of the Conservative party want different things?
There is no realistic deal that John Redwood and Ken Clarke or Anna Soubry could support. Which in a microcosm is the problem she faces with Brexit negotiations I think.
And that different parts of the Conservative party want different things?
There is no realistic deal that John Redwood and Ken Clarke or Anna Soubry could support. Which in a microcosm is the problem she faces with Brexit negotiations I think.
Interesting as always - Blair is 63, for him to be Prime Minister again would be the biggest comeback since Lazarus. I can't see it though he could be the biggest destabilising force to politics since Roy Jenkins returned from Brussels. He could potentially tear apart three parties (and possibly two more).
I do accept that a referendum on the terms of any negotiated Treaty is and would be incredibly difficult because there has to be a clear plan for the rejection of the Treaty.
IF the treaty was rejected in a referendum, that wouldn't of course imply there was a mandate to re-join the EU but it would mean a re-negotiation of the Brexit terms and could those whose previous efforts had been rejected go back to the EU with any credibility?
Such a rejection would finish Davis, Fox and Johnson politically so wouldn't be entirely without merit but nor would there be any clarity about whether we wanted a harder or softer or simply less half-baked Brexit. It's entirely possible May's Government will serve up a Treaty which no one will like (probably making it coincidentally quite a good deal).
Those who advocate the "second referendum" need to be entirely clear about what a "No" vote would mean in terms of the next steps.
"The Government would like our ideas quickly and we suggest within a couple of weeks. Accordingly, all Stables; all Faculty interest groups; all Associations; all groups of members with a common interest and individual members are invited to submit bullet points or a short paragraph/summary of the essential elements of European legal provision that they consider vital to retain in their own field. Please do not suggest the 1972 Act."
Particularly liked the last bit but I would very much hope Westminster is undertaking similar exercises. Anyone aware of such requests?
Also, do not underestimate the violence of the early solar system. Not only do we believe an impact of Theia formed the Moon from Earth; Mars might similarly have formed from the remains of an impact on Venus (citation required). Early on in the solar system's development, Jupiter and Saturn voyaged inwards on a grand tack, nearing the orbit of Mars and sending various bodies all over the place. It was an incredibly violent period, and nothing like the relative stability we have now. Who knows how many formative icy bodies were swept up and sent into us by Jupiter and Saturn.
If the theories are right ...
The Earth itself may have lost a large proportion of its water in various ways. Not, sadly, my proposed 'space straw' to such up water to defeat rising sea levels, but I live in hope!
I also like the theory that Earth's had three distinct atmospheres through history, including one of metal vapour ...
The Foreign Office counsel resigned because she thought the invasion illegal under international law. I think the issue was that we invaded without an immediate danger to ourselves and without the sanction of the UN. The Attorney General disagreed in a very aggressively argued judgment. In any case international law is notoriously difficult to prosecute against.
7*10^8 cubic km, which is...
7*10^8*10^9 cubic metres, which is...
7*10^17 cubic metres
So
* The Pacific has 7*10^17 cubic metres
* Halley's comet contains about 2*10^11 cubic metres of water
So to fill the Pacific would take about 4*10^6 Halleys. That's 4 million Halleys to fill one Pacific.
Pause
I think you have a point.
What a shame that British-based management could not make this much of a success of JLR ...
Anyway, these seem appropriate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment
(*) Sorry.
The dinosaur family house gets destroyed by a meteorite, but they claim for a meteor. As a meteor becomes a meteorite upon entering the atmosphere, the insurance refuses to pay out.