Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
Cameron had until the end of 2017, and I still can't fathom why we had the referendum this year after such lack of success in the negotiation. Cameron could have come back and kicked up a stink, sending the polls for leave soaring, and then gone back for Renegotiation Round II: This Time We Are Serious.
I had two theories on that. One, he was worried we might have another migrant crisis year, stirring up matters such that even if he got a better deal, he would find it harder to get through than a lesser deal now. Two, he was still riding relatively high, and thought he could get it through now, and he needed to as he would find it harder to get a better deal next year when the French and Germans needed to do their own election posturing.
Three, that he thought he 'could wing it' - and ended up defining his entire premiership, which until then had been promising........
You suggested Ridge wine several weeks ago. On my travels today I stumbled across a bottle of chardonnay. Unfortunately I will not be drinking it anytime soon so cannot comment on it. I do however, need to buy some of their Cabernet Sauvignon but have been awfully lazy lately and haven't had time.
Cheers for the suggestion though.
If you come to a PB gathering, I'll bring you a bottle of the Monte Bello, which I consider to be the best Bordeaux* in the world.
* OK, it's not really Bordeaux. But it's the best Bordeaux style wine under about two hundred and fifty quid a bottle. I buy a case of six every year, and drink it when I have something to celebrate.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
Would paying for EU citizenship be open to anyone, or just, say, associate countries like the UK, in your perfect system?
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
Cameron had until the end of 2017, and I still can't fathom why we had the referendum this year after such lack of success in the negotiation. Cameron could have come back and kicked up a stink, sending the polls for leave soaring, and then gone back for Renegotiation Round II: This Time We Are Serious.
Complacency - pure complacency is all. They thought it was in the bag regardless.
I had two theories on that. One, he was worried we might have another migrant crisis year, stirring up matters such that even if he got a better deal, he would find it harder to get through than a lesser deal now. Two, he was still riding relatively high, and thought he could get it through now, and he needed to as he would find it harder to get a better deal next year when the French and Germans needed to do their own election posturing.
One thing is for certain the Remain and Clinton campaigns of 2016 are going to be studied for decades to come. Once the dust has settled there should be some very interesting books about them.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
Would paying for EU citizenship be open to anyone, or just, say, associate countries like the UK, in your perfect system?
Yes
How much would you charge and would the value be dependent upon the person applying ?
Comparing the results of the 2016 and 2000 Presidential elections I make it 28 states swung to the Republicans and 22 to the Democrats.
The reason why the overall Democrat lead is so much higher in 2016 than in 2000 is the enormous (and useless) lead they've built up in California - from under 1.3 million in 2000 to over 3.8 million in 2016.
With the exception of Utah, with its Independent candidate effect, the state which has swung most to the Democrats since 2000 is California.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
Would paying for EU citizenship be open to anyone, or just, say, associate countries like the UK, in your perfect system?
Yes
How much would you charge and would the value be dependent upon the person applying ?
I would have a sliding scale, with a 22 year old paying less than a 55 year old. The 22 year old is much cheaper, in terms of NHS costs, than the 55 year old, and is much more likely to integrate. If a 55 year old wants to come here and pay 55k a year, great. He's certainly not going to be doing unskilled labour, and if he's the head of the Financial Services practise at PWC, then 55k is a drop in the ocean.
For a 22 year old, we can have a much lower fee: say 3k/year. Very little unskilled migration happens, especially if you have to pay the first year up front. I might allow a year's "holiday" for people who've (paid to) study in the UK, but I wouldn't complicate things any further than that. I'm very relaxed about whether the fee is paid by the employer or the individual.
If we have 1m migrants in the UK (not coming to, but resident, which is probably a lot fewer than there are today), and they pay an average of 10k, that would work out at ten billion pounds a year, allowing us to lower other taxes.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
I'm not asking for "additional" rights. It's preserving the ones I have. 'Specially the not-being-tortured one. I'm quite fond of that one.
Well as far as UK law goes torture has been illegal since 1640. So on a basic point of law you were no more permitted to be tortured for the 330 odd years before we joined the EU than you were for the 40 or so years after we joined. And as signatories to the various UN conventions on torture you are just as well protected against being sent somewhere else to be tortured as you are under EU law.
Comparing the results of the 2016 and 2000 Presidential elections I make it 28 states swung to the Republicans and 22 to the Democrats.
The reason why the overall Democrat lead is so much higher in 2016 than in 2000 is the enormous (and useless) lead they've built up in California - from under 1.3 million in 2000 to over 3.8 million in 2016.
With the exception of Utah, with its Independent candidate effect, the state which has swung most to the Democrats since 2000 is California.
And Clinton actually held an event in California, while failing to do so in Wisconsin.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
Would paying for EU citizenship be open to anyone, or just, say, associate countries like the UK, in your perfect system?
Yes
How much would you charge and would the value be dependent upon the person applying ?
I would have a sliding scale, with a 22 year old paying less than a 55 year old. The 22 year old is much cheaper, in terms of NHS costs, than the 55 year old, and is much more likely to integrate. If a 55 year old wants to come here and pay 55k a year, great. He's certainly not going to be doing unskilled labour, and if he's the head of the Financial Services practise at PWC, then 55k is a drop in the ocean.
For a 22 year old, we can have a much lower fee: say 3k/year. Very little unskilled migration happens, especially if you have to pay the first year up front. I might allow a year's "holiday" for people who've (paid to) study in the UK, but I wouldn't complicate things any further than that. I'm very relaxed about whether the fee is paid by the employer or the individual.
If we have 1m migrants in the UK (not coming to, but resident, which is probably a lot fewer than there are today), and they pay an average of 10k, that would work out at ten billion pounds a year, allowing us to lower other taxes.
Basically, let the free market decide.
But is this an annual fee, or is it an outright purchase of citizenship?
It really matters - if it's an annual fee, then once @viewcode has been stripped of all his/her financial assets, his/her protection against torture (say) lapses all too soon.
But is this an annual fee, or is it an outright purchase of citizenship?
It really matters - if it's an annual fee, then once @viewcode has been stripped of all his/her financial assets, his/her protection against torture (say) lapses all too soon.
I'm suggesting an annual fee. After five years of residence, you can - of course - apply to become a permanent citizen.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
Would paying for EU citizenship be open to anyone, or just, say, associate countries like the UK, in your perfect system?
Yes
How much would you charge and would the value be dependent upon the person applying ?
I would have a sliding scale, with a 22 year old paying less than a 55 year old. The 22 year old is much cheaper, in terms of NHS costs, than the 55 year old, and is much more likely to integrate. If a 55 year old wants to come here and pay 55k a year, great. He's certainly not going to be doing unskilled labour, and if he's the head of the Financial Services practise at PWC, then 55k is a drop in the ocean.
For
Basically, let the free market decide.
But is this an annual fee, or is it an outright purchase of citizenship?
It really matters - if it's an annual fee, then once @viewcode has been stripped of all his/her financial assets, his/her protection against torture (say) lapses all too soon.
So-called protection against torture didn't prevent us all being subjected to Owen Thingy's leadership bid.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
I'm not asking for "additional" rights. It's preserving the ones I have. 'Specially the not-being-tortured one. I'm quite fond of that one.
Well as far as UK law goes torture has been illegal since 1640. So on a basic point of law you were no more permitted to be tortured for the 330 odd years before we joined the EU than you were for the 40 or so years after we joined. And as signatories to the various UN conventions on torture you are just as well protected against being sent somewhere else to be tortured as you are under EU law.
Furthermore, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture is not EU law, but was signed by the 47 states of the Council of Europe. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture, set up under the convention, is also not an EU entity.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
I'm not asking for "additional" rights. It's preserving the ones I have. 'Specially the not-being-tortured one. I'm quite fond of that one.
Well as far as UK law goes torture has been illegal since 1640. So on a basic point of law you were no more permitted to be tortured for the 330 odd years before we joined the EU than you were for the 40 or so years after we joined. And as signatories to the various UN conventions on torture you are just as well protected against being sent somewhere else to be tortured as you are under EU law.
Furthermore, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture is not EU law, but was signed by the 47 states of the Council of Europe. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture, set up under the convention, is also not an EU entity.
I hope you're not suggesting we stay a member of the Council of Europe. I don't think people voted for that.
You suggested Ridge wine several weeks ago. On my travels today I stumbled across a bottle of chardonnay. Unfortunately I will not be drinking it anytime soon so cannot comment on it. I do however, need to buy some of their Cabernet Sauvignon but have been awfully lazy lately and haven't had time.
Cheers for the suggestion though.
If you come to a PB gathering, I'll bring you a bottle of the Monte Bello, which I consider to be the best Bordeaux* in the world.
* OK, it's not really Bordeaux. But it's the best Bordeaux style wine under about two hundred and fifty quid a bottle. I buy a case of six every year, and drink it when I have something to celebrate.
Cheers!
Do you have any recommendations when it comes to the Monte Bello vintages? I have seen the 2010 get decent reviews.
There are quite a few decent looking wines from California but I think I have missed the boat on many of them and they are kinda pricey now. Although some of the Stag's Leap stuff is reasonably priced.
You suggested Ridge wine several weeks ago. On my travels today I stumbled across a bottle of chardonnay. Unfortunately I will not be drinking it anytime soon so cannot comment on it. I do however, need to buy some of their Cabernet Sauvignon but have been awfully lazy lately and haven't had time.
Cheers for the suggestion though.
If you come to a PB gathering, I'll bring you a bottle of the Monte Bello, which I consider to be the best Bordeaux* in the world.
* OK, it's not really Bordeaux. But it's the best Bordeaux style wine under about two hundred and fifty quid a bottle. I buy a case of six every year, and drink it when I have something to celebrate.
Cheers!
Do you have any recommendations when it comes to the Monte Bello vintages? I have seen the 2010 get decent reviews.
There are quite a few decent looking wines from California but I think I have missed the boat on many of them and they are kinda pricey now. Although some of the Stag's Leap stuff is reasonably priced.
The 2010 is excellent, and six years old is the perfect age for a Californian wine. Monte Bello avoids what I call "New World Disease", which is when alcohol content gets ramped up to a ridiculous level (Opus One, Penfold's Grange, I'm looking at you). It's a complex but eminently drinkable wine.
In America, you can buy the Estate Cabernet Sauvignion for $25, which is terrific value. It loses a bit of the character, but is a much better wine that a twenty quid bottle of Bordeaux. In the UK, the Estate is forty quid and therefore a bit too close in price to the Monte Bello. (And forty quid is a hard price point. Far too expensive for regular drinking. You need to be really good, and it's just not good enough.)
There are some lovely Stag's Leap wines. They are big without being absurd. Perhaps a little over-engineered (just too smooth...), but terrific value.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
I'm not asking for "additional" rights. It's preserving the ones I have. 'Specially the not-being-tortured one. I'm quite fond of that one.
Well as far as UK law goes torture has been illegal since 1640. So on a basic point of law you were no more permitted to be tortured for the 330 odd years before we joined the EU than you were for the 40 or so years after we joined. And as signatories to the various UN conventions on torture you are just as well protected against being sent somewhere else to be tortured as you are under EU law.
Furthermore, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture is not EU law, but was signed by the 47 states of the Council of Europe. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture, set up under the convention, is also not an EU entity.
I hope you're not suggesting we stay a member of the Council of Europe. I don't think people voted for that.
Indeed. The referendum was about leaving the European Beer Consumers Union and nothing else.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
I'm not asking for "additional" rights. It's preserving the ones I have. 'Specially the not-being-tortured one. I'm quite fond of that one.
Well as far as UK law goes torture has been illegal since 1640. So on a basic point of law you were no more permitted to be tortured for the 330 odd years before we joined the EU than you were for the 40 or so years after we joined. And as signatories to the various UN conventions on torture you are just as well protected against being sent somewhere else to be tortured as you are under EU law.
Yes, I know. It's a fair point. But take away the oversight, and suddenly there's the cops in the alley administering some proper British coppering like Mum used to make and everybody's looking the other way. Laws are only as good as the belief that they should be enforced.
Comparing the results of the 2016 and 2000 Presidential elections I make it 28 states swung to the Republicans and 22 to the Democrats.
The reason why the overall Democrat lead is so much higher in 2016 than in 2000 is the enormous (and useless) lead they've built up in California - from under 1.3 million in 2000 to over 3.8 million in 2016.
With the exception of Utah, with its Independent candidate effect, the state which has swung most to the Democrats since 2000 is California.
And Clinton actually held an event in California, while failing to do so in Wisconsin.
It must have been one hell of an event given that swing
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
I'm not asking for "additional" rights. It's preserving the ones I have. 'Specially the not-being-tortured one. I'm quite fond of that one.
Well as far as UK law goes torture has been illegal since 1640. So on a basic point of law you were no more permitted to be tortured for the 330 odd years before we joined the EU than you were for the 40 or so years after we joined. And as signatories to the various UN conventions on torture you are just as well protected against being sent somewhere else to be tortured as you are under EU law.
Furthermore, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture is not EU law, but was signed by the 47 states of the Council of Europe. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture, set up under the convention, is also not an EU entity.
I hope you're not suggesting we stay a member of the Council of Europe. I don't think people voted for that.
It does get confusing when two bodies share the same name.
Comparing the results of the 2016 and 2000 Presidential elections I make it 28 states swung to the Republicans and 22 to the Democrats.
The reason why the overall Democrat lead is so much higher in 2016 than in 2000 is the enormous (and useless) lead they've built up in California - from under 1.3 million in 2000 to over 3.8 million in 2016.
With the exception of Utah, with its Independent candidate effect, the state which has swung most to the Democrats since 2000 is California.
And Clinton actually held an event in California, while failing to do so in Wisconsin.
It must have been one hell of an event given that swing
I do wonder if the election in the US was the beginning of the end of the US demos. What if the Democrats rack up ever bigger margins on the coasts, but the Republicans win the middle? What if there were to be a 55:45 loss? Would the US be able to hold together if a fifth more people voted for the losing candidate than the winning one?
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
I'm not asking for "additional" rights. It's preserving the ones I have. 'Specially the not-being-tortured one. I'm quite fond of that one.
Well as far as UK law goes torture has been illegal since 1640. So on a basic point of law you were no more permitted to be tortured for the 330 odd years before we joined the EU than you were for the 40 or so years after we joined. And as signatories to the various UN conventions on torture you are just as well protected against being sent somewhere else to be tortured as you are under EU law.
Furthermore, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture is not EU law, but was signed by the 47 states of the Council of Europe. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture, set up under the convention, is also not an EU entity.
I hope you're not suggesting we stay a member of the Council of Europe. I don't think people voted for that.
It does get confusing when two bodies share the same name.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
I'm not asking for "additional" rights. It's preserving the ones I have. 'Specially the not-being-tortured one. I'm quite fond of that one.
Well as far as UK law goes torture has been illegal since 1640. So on a basic point of law you were no more permitted to be tortured for the 330 odd years before we joined the EU than you were for the 40 or so years after we joined. And as signatories to the various UN conventions on torture you are just as well protected against being sent somewhere else to be tortured as you are under EU law.
Furthermore, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture is not EU law, but was signed by the 47 states of the Council of Europe. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture, set up under the convention, is also not an EU entity.
I hope you're not suggesting we stay a member of the Council of Europe. I don't think people voted for that.
It does get confusing when two bodies share the same name.
Comparing the results of the 2016 and 2000 Presidential elections I make it 28 states swung to the Republicans and 22 to the Democrats.
The reason why the overall Democrat lead is so much higher in 2016 than in 2000 is the enormous (and useless) lead they've built up in California - from under 1.3 million in 2000 to over 3.8 million in 2016.
With the exception of Utah, with its Independent candidate effect, the state which has swung most to the Democrats since 2000 is California.
And Clinton actually held an event in California, while failing to do so in Wisconsin.
It must have been one hell of an event given that swing
I do wonder if the election in the US was the beginning of the end of the US demos. What if the Democrats rack up ever bigger margins on the coasts, but the Republicans win the middle? What if there were to be a 55:45 loss? Would the US be able to hold together if a fifth more people voted for the losing candidate than the winning one?
...repeatedly. And migration will make matters worse, until the Democrats can take Texas.
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
I'm not asking for "additional" rights. It's preserving the ones I have. 'Specially the not-being-tortured one. I'm quite fond of that one.
Well as far as UK law goes torture has been illegal since 1640. So on a basic point of law you were no more permitted to be tortured for the 330 odd years before we joined the EU than you were for the 40 or so years after we joined. And as signatories to the various UN conventions on torture you are just as well protected against being sent somewhere else to be tortured as you are under EU law.
Yes, I know. It's a fair point. But take away the oversight, and suddenly there's the cops in the alley administering some proper British coppering like Mum used to make and everybody's looking the other way. Laws are only as good as the belief that they should be enforced.
Christ - do people really think European mainlanders are better at policing than the Brits? Whatever happened to that old Heaven and Hell joke?
Sounds like the Economist is beginning to shift its view on the Euro a teensy bit.
The problem with the euro is the same with all fixed currency systems (and, of course, we've had fixed currency systems for most of the last 150 years): you can only make it work if you have a flexible economy.
Italy and France (and historically Spain) had economies where constant inflation and devaluation made up for the deliberately inflexible labour markets. If your real income dropped 3% every year through inflation, your economy could adjust relatively easily. If your exchange rate is fixed, you need to have a labour market where the price of work can change. We have that. The Dutch have that. The Italians do not.
Spain has proved that you can change, and go from an inflexible model to a flexible one. But is there the political will in France and Italy to do that? I suspect not.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
Cameron had until the end of 2017, and I still can't fathom why we had the referendum this year after such lack of success in the negotiation. Cameron could have come back and kicked up a stink, sending the polls for leave soaring, and then gone back for Renegotiation Round II: This Time We Are Serious.
Complacency - pure complacency is all. They thought it was in the bag regardless.
Sounds like the Economist is beginning to shift its view on the Euro a teensy bit.
The problem with the euro is the same with all fixed currency systems (and, of course, we've had fixed currency systems for most of the last 150 years): you can only make it work if you have a flexible economy.
Italy and France (and historically Spain) had economies where constant inflation and devaluation made up for the deliberately inflexible labour markets. If your real income dropped 3% every year through inflation, your economy could adjust relatively easily. If your exchange rate is fixed, you need to have a labour market where the price of work can change. We have that. The Dutch have that. The Italians do not.
Spain has proved that you can change, and go from an inflexible model to a flexible one. But is there the political will in France and Italy to do that? I suspect not.
Frankly, I am amazed that Spain was able to. The reasons you cite are why I was against the Euro from the outset. I predicted at the time to anyone who would be bothered to listen that it would lead to economic imbalance between the north and south of the EU, and social unrest in those countries where labour market inflexibility would lead to chronic high unemployment. Fortunately, the social unrest has not been as great as I predicted.
You suggested Ridge wine several weeks ago. On my travels today I stumbled across a bottle of chardonnay. Unfortunately I will not be drinking it anytime soon so cannot comment on it. I do however, need to buy some of their Cabernet Sauvignon but have been awfully lazy lately and haven't had time.
Cheers for the suggestion though.
If you come to a PB gathering, I'll bring you a bottle of the Monte Bello, which I consider to be the best Bordeaux* in the world.
* OK, it's not really Bordeaux. But it's the best Bordeaux style wine under about two hundred and fifty quid a bottle. I buy a case of six every year, and drink it when I have something to celebrate.
Cheers!
Do you have any recommendations when it comes to the Monte Bello vintages? I have seen the 2010 get decent reviews.
There are quite a few decent looking wines from California but I think I have missed the boat on many of them and they are kinda pricey now. Although some of the Stag's Leap stuff is reasonably priced.
The 2010 is excellent, and six years old is the perfect age for a Californian wine. Monte Bello avoids what I call "New World Disease", which is when alcohol content gets ramped up to a ridiculous level (Opus One, Penfold's Grange, I'm looking at you). It's a complex but eminently drinkable wine.
In America, you can buy the Estate Cabernet Sauvignion for $25, which is terrific value. It loses a bit of the character, but is a much better wine that a twenty quid bottle of Bordeaux. In the UK, the Estate is forty quid and therefore a bit too close in price to the Monte Bello. (And forty quid is a hard price point. Far too expensive for regular drinking. You need to be really good, and it's just not good enough.)
There are some lovely Stag's Leap wines. They are big without being absurd. Perhaps a little over-engineered (just too smooth...), but terrific value.
I am sold. I will see if I can pick up a bottle at some point. I have had plenty to celebrate and not actually got round to celebrating so will be the perfect excuse.
Some of the wines on sale in the States seem rediculously cheap in comparison to here. Like supermarket prices.
I need to do a bit more research on the Stag's Leap wine. It seems really good value (at the moment).
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
It would depend on what you get for it. If I got freedom of movement and the protection of the ECHR, it might be worth forking out a grand or two: I'm reaching the age where retiring to a warm climate appeals, and if the funny cops decide to install me in Paddington Green and bring out the hot needles, it would be nice to have somebody to say "er, torture, nein danke"
Obviously, being an EU citizen (or a US citizen) could not grant you additional rights in the UK.
Of course, offering a paid for EU citizenship is just the EU doing what I've suggested all along: allowing the free market to work for immigration.
I'm not asking for "additional" rights. It's preserving the ones I have. 'Specially the not-being-tortured one. I'm quite fond of that one.
Well as far as UK law goes torture has been illegal since 1640. So on a basic point of law you were no more permitted to be tortured for the 330 odd years before we joined the EU than you were for the 40 or so years after we joined. And as signatories to the various UN conventions on torture you are just as well protected against being sent somewhere else to be tortured as you are under EU law.
Yes, I know. It's a fair point. But take away the oversight, and suddenly there's the cops in the alley administering some proper British coppering like Mum used to make and everybody's looking the other way. Laws are only as good as the belief that they should be enforced.
We don't need the EU to enforce our laws. In any case they have a very poor record in enforcing their own.
Sounds like the Economist is beginning to shift its view on the Euro a teensy bit.
The problem with the euro is the same with all fixed currency systems (and, of course, we've had fixed currency systems for most of the last 150 years): you can only make it work if you have a flexible economy.
Italy and France (and historically Spain) had economies where constant inflation and devaluation made up for the deliberately inflexible labour markets. If your real income dropped 3% every year through inflation, your economy could adjust relatively easily. If your exchange rate is fixed, you need to have a labour market where the price of work can change. We have that. The Dutch have that. The Italians do not.
Spain has proved that you can change, and go from an inflexible model to a flexible one. But is there the political will in France and Italy to do that? I suspect not.
Frankly, I am amazed that Spain was able to. The reasons you cite are why I was against the Euro from the outset. I predicted at the time to anyone who would be bothered to listen that it would lead to economic imbalance between the north and south of the EU, and social unrest in those countries where labour market inflexibility would lead to chronic high unemployment. Fortunately, the social unrest has not been as great as I predicted.
Spain was able to because most Spaniards in their fifties and sixties remember Franco. The fear of returning to a fascist dictatorship is still in the minds of many educated Spaniards. There's a similar fear of returning to communism (or, indeed, mother Russia's embrace) in the Baltic states which also means they'll ensure far, far more than most countries.
No one in the French political class remembers the inter war period and it's aftermath.
You suggested Ridge wine several weeks ago. On my travels today I stumbled across a bottle of chardonnay. Unfortunately I will not be drinking it anytime soon so cannot comment on it. I do however, need to buy some of their Cabernet Sauvignon but have been awfully lazy lately and haven't had time.
Cheers for the suggestion though.
If you come to a PB gathering, I'll bring you a bottle of the Monte Bello, which I consider to be the best Bordeaux* in the world.
* OK, it's not really Bordeaux. But it's the best Bordeaux style wine under about two hundred and fifty quid a bottle. I buy a case of six every year, and drink it when I have something to celebrate.
Cheers!
Do you have any recommendations when it comes to the Monte Bello vintages? I have seen the 2010 get decent reviews.
There are quite a few decent looking wines from California but I think I have missed the boat on many of them and they are kinda pricey now. Although some of the Stag's Leap stuff is reasonably priced.
The 2010 is excellent, and six years old is the perfect age for a Californian wine. Monte Bello avoids what I call "New World Disease", which is when alcohol content gets ramped up to a ridiculous level (Opus One, Penfold's Grange, I'm looking at you). It's a complex but eminently drinkable wine.
In America, you can buy the Estate Cabernet Sauvignion for $25, which is terrific value. It loses a bit of the character, but is a much better wine that a twenty quid bottle of Bordeaux. In the UK, the Estate is forty quid and therefore a bit too close in price to the Monte Bello. (And forty quid is a hard price point. Far too expensive for regular drinking. You need to be really good, and it's just not good enough.)
There are some lovely Stag's Leap wines. They are big without being absurd. Perhaps a little over-engineered (just too smooth...), but terrific value.
Along the lines of New World Disease, please ignore Robert Parker ratings. I blame his ratings almost entirely for the disease. Araujo and Screaming Eagle being cases in point, too, along with Opus One.
For value California reds, I like some of the funkier grape combinations, particularly from non-Napa areas such as Paso Robles. I like Peachy Canyon and Liberty School
Sounds like the Economist is beginning to shift its view on the Euro a teensy bit.
The problem with the euro is the same with all fixed currency systems (and, of course, we've had fixed currency systems for most of the last 150 years): you can only make it work if you have a flexible economy.
Italy and France (and historically Spain) had economies where constant inflation and devaluation made up for the deliberately inflexible labour markets. If your real income dropped 3% every year through inflation, your economy could adjust relatively easily. If your exchange rate is fixed, you need to have a labour market where the price of work can change. We have that. The Dutch have that. The Italians do not.
Spain has proved that you can change, and go from an inflexible model to a flexible one. But is there the political will in France and Italy to do that? I suspect not.
Frankly, I am amazed that Spain was able to. The reasons you cite are why I was against the Euro from the outset. I predicted at the time to anyone who would be bothered to listen that it would lead to economic imbalance between the north and south of the EU, and social unrest in those countries where labour market inflexibility would lead to chronic high unemployment. Fortunately, the social unrest has not been as great as I predicted.
Spain was able to because most Spaniards in their fifties and sixties remember Franco. The fear of returning to a fascist dictatorship is still in the minds of many educated Spaniards. There's a similar fear of returning to communism (or, indeed, mother Russia's embrace) in the Baltic states which also means they'll ensure far, far more than most countries.
No one in the French political class remembers the inter war period and it's aftermath.
Alas, I despair of France. Perhaps they truly need a Le Pen, or Fillon*.
* as diametrically opposed ways of coming to the stage of accepting the need for change, the latter being the quicker and less damaging.
You suggested Ridge wine several weeks ago. On my travels today I stumbled across a bottle of chardonnay. Unfortunately I will not be drinking it anytime soon so cannot comment on it. I do however, need to buy some of their Cabernet Sauvignon but have been awfully lazy lately and haven't had time.
Cheers for the suggestion though.
If you come to a PB gathering, I'll bring you a bottle of the Monte Bello, which I consider to be the best Bordeaux* in the world.
* OK, it's not really Bordeaux. But it's the best Bordeaux style wine under about two hundred and fifty quid a bottle. I buy a case of six every year, and drink it when I have something to celebrate.
Cheers!
Do you have any recommendations when it comes to the Monte Bello vintages? I have seen the 2010 get decent reviews.
There are quite a few decent looking wines from California but I think I have missed the boat on many of them and they are kinda pricey now. Although some of the Stag's Leap stuff is reasonably priced.
The 2010 is excellent, and six years old is the perfect age for a Californian wine. Monte Bello avoids what I call "New World Disease", which is when alcohol content gets ramped up to a ridiculous level (Opus One, Penfold's Grange, I'm looking at you). It's a complex but eminently drinkable wine.
In America, you can buy the Estate Cabernet Sauvignion for $25, which is terrific value. It loses a bit of the character, but is a much better wine that a twenty quid bottle of Bordeaux. In the UK, the Estate is forty quid and therefore a bit too close in price to the Monte Bello. (And forty quid is a hard price point. Far too expensive for regular drinking. You need to be really good, and it's just not good enough.)
There are some lovely Stag's Leap wines. They are big without being absurd. Perhaps a little over-engineered (just too smooth...), but terrific value.
Along the lines of New World Disease, please ignore Robert Parker ratings. I blame his ratings almost entirely for the disease. Araujo and Screaming Eagle being cases in point, too, along with Opus One.
For value California reds, I like some of the funkier grape combinations, particularly from non-Napa areas such as Paso Robles. I like Peachy Canyon and Liberty School
You suggested Ridge wine several weeks ago. On my travels today I stumbled across a bottle of chardonnay. Unfortunately I will not be drinking it anytime soon so cannot comment on it. I do however, need to buy some of their Cabernet Sauvignon but have been awfully lazy lately and haven't had time.
Cheers for the suggestion though.
If you come to a PB gathering, I'll bring you a bottle of the Monte Bello, which I consider to be the best Bordeaux* in the world.
* OK, it's not really Bordeaux. But it's the best Bordeaux style wine under about two hundred and fifty quid a bottle. I buy a case of six every year, and drink it when I have something to celebrate.
Cheers!
Do you have any recommendations when it comes to the Monte Bello vintages? I have seen the 2010 get decent reviews.
There are quite a few decent looking wines from California but I think I have missed the boat on many of them and they are kinda pricey now. Although some of the Stag's Leap stuff is reasonably priced.
The 2010 is excellent, and six years old is the perfect age for a Californian wine. Monte Bello avoids what I call "New World Disease", which is when alcohol content gets ramped up to a ridiculous level (Opus One, Penfold's Grange, I'm looking at you). It's a complex but eminently drinkable wine.
In America, you can buy the Estate Cabernet Sauvignion for $25, which is terrific value. It loses a bit of the character, but is a much better wine that a twenty quid bottle of Bordeaux. In the UK, the Estate is forty quid and therefore a bit too close in price to the Monte Bello. (And forty quid is a hard price point. Far too expensive for regular drinking. You need to be really good, and it's just not good enough.)
There are some lovely Stag's Leap wines. They are big without being absurd. Perhaps a little over-engineered (just too smooth...), but terrific value.
Along the lines of New World Disease, please ignore Robert Parker ratings. I blame his ratings almost entirely for the disease. Araujo and Screaming Eagle being cases in point, too, along with Opus One.
For value California reds, I like some of the funkier grape combinations, particularly from non-Napa areas such as Paso Robles. I like Peachy Canyon and Liberty School
Comparing the results of the 2016 and 2000 Presidential elections I make it 28 states swung to the Republicans and 22 to the Democrats.
The reason why the overall Democrat lead is so much higher in 2016 than in 2000 is the enormous (and useless) lead they've built up in California - from under 1.3 million in 2000 to over 3.8 million in 2016.
With the exception of Utah, with its Independent candidate effect, the state which has swung most to the Democrats since 2000 is California.
Is that because of the huge rise in support from hispanics? W.Bush got 35% amongst this group didn't he.
I had two theories on that. One, he was worried we might have another migrant crisis year, stirring up matters such that even if he got a better deal, he would find it harder to get through than a lesser deal now. Two, he was still riding relatively high, and thought he could get it through now, and he needed to as he would find it harder to get a better deal next year when the French and Germans needed to do their own election posturing.
One thing is for certain the Remain and Clinton campaigns of 2016 are going to be studied for decades to come. Once the dust has settled there should be some very interesting books about them.
Some initial thoughts from Ashcroft:
American voters were crying out for change, yet the Democrats offered its antithesis: the Washington establishment incarnate. People in states and counties the Democrats had come to take for granted worried about their jobs, their futures, prospects for their children, the ballooning cost of healthcare, the state of their roads and bridges, immigration, terrorism, the effect of trade deals on their industries, and America’s place in the world – and the Democratic candidate responded: did you hear what Donald Trump said about an ex-Miss Universe?
The Democrats thought everyone shared their assumptions. Having decided that no decent person could vote for Donald Trump – a candidate backed by a “basket of deplorables” – they seemed to argue that people had a moral responsibility to keep him out of office, irrespective of any other consideration: “our children are watching”, as her ads relentlessly reminded the TV audience.
I don't disagree with your conclusion but FWIW, you don't need a machine to be hooked up to the internet to hack it. You can do it with either with physical access to the machine or, more cyber-ifically, by hacking the software before it gets onto the machine.
In case the latter sounds far-fetched, bear in mind that Juniper firewalls - which are expensive machines designed by experts with security in mind, and run by highly security-conscious organizations like the US military, had a backdoor that went unnoticed for years. This can be done either by bribing/coercing an insider or by hacking the machine of somebody with credentials to work on the code, which *will* be connected to the internet.
This is quite hard to detect even with excellent systems, open source code and good procedures, and the systems and procedures we're talking about here are horrible.
The study only has data to 2014....but does rather plaintively point point that in that year only 36 crossed the channel in the direction of France, as opposed to the hundreds going in the opposite direction.....
The study only has data to 2014....but does rather plaintively point point that in that year only 36 crossed the channel in the direction of France, as opposed to the hundreds going in the opposite direction.....
That's what I get for not clicking the link! Oh dear
......shouting into an echo chamber will not amplify our voices.....
...... While they might make us feel better in the short term, the benefits of feeling intellectually and morally superior to the man who just defied all polls and pundits to become the president-elect of the United States will certainly prove ephemeral.
I had two theories on that. One, he was worried we might have another migrant crisis year, stirring up matters such that even if he got a better deal, he would find it harder to get through than a lesser deal now. Two, he was still riding relatively high, and thought he could get it through now, and he needed to as he would find it harder to get a better deal next year when the French and Germans needed to do their own election posturing.
One thing is for certain the Remain and Clinton campaigns of 2016 are going to be studied for decades to come. Once the dust has settled there should be some very interesting books about them.
Some initial thoughts from Ashcroft:
American voters were crying out for change, yet the Democrats offered its antithesis: the Washington establishment incarnate. People in states and counties the Democrats had come to take for granted worried about their jobs, their futures, prospects for their children, the ballooning cost of healthcare, the state of their roads and bridges, immigration, terrorism, the effect of trade deals on their industries, and America’s place in the world – and the Democratic candidate responded: did you hear what Donald Trump said about an ex-Miss Universe?
The Democrats thought everyone shared their assumptions. Having decided that no decent person could vote for Donald Trump – a candidate backed by a “basket of deplorables” – they seemed to argue that people had a moral responsibility to keep him out of office, irrespective of any other consideration: “our children are watching”, as her ads relentlessly reminded the TV audience.
I had two theories on that. One, he was worried we might have another migrant crisis year, stirring up matters such that even if he got a better deal, he would find it harder to get through than a lesser deal now. Two, he was still riding relatively high, and thought he could get it through now, and he needed to as he would find it harder to get a better deal next year when the French and Germans needed to do their own election posturing.
One thing is for certain the Remain and Clinton campaigns of 2016 are going to be studied for decades to come. Once the dust has settled there should be some very interesting books about them.
Some initial thoughts from Ashcroft:
American voters were crying out for change, yet the Democrats offered its antithesis: the Washington establishment incarnate. People in states and counties the Democrats had come to take for granted worried about their jobs, their futures, prospects for their children, the ballooning cost of healthcare, the state of their roads and bridges, immigration, terrorism, the effect of trade deals on their industries, and America’s place in the world – and the Democratic candidate responded: did you hear what Donald Trump said about an ex-Miss Universe?
The Democrats thought everyone shared their assumptions. Having decided that no decent person could vote for Donald Trump – a candidate backed by a “basket of deplorables” – they seemed to argue that people had a moral responsibility to keep him out of office, irrespective of any other consideration: “our children are watching”, as her ads relentlessly reminded the TV audience.
Peter Sallis? Vera Lynn? Kök Douglas? Geraldissimo Kaufperson? Mrs Trellis of North Wales? The Eternal Realm yet awaits numerous heroic revolutionary pioneers, as well as the gradually-senescent vast plethora of workers, soldiers, peasants, strivers, strugglers, bourgeois intellectuals, littérateurs, salonistes, flâneurs, booliaks, treacle-pudding maniacs, pobblequacks, bumpkins, trumpkins, sensiblists and sillyites.
A potentially enormous sexual abuse scandal is unfolding day by day and the political class seems to be so far entirely uninterested. There are more things than Brexit to worry about.
I had two theories on that. One, he was worried we might have another migrant crisis year, stirring up matters such that even if he got a better deal, he would find it harder to get through than a lesser deal now. Two, he was still riding relatively high, and thought he could get it through now, and he needed to as he would find it harder to get a better deal next year when the French and Germans needed to do their own election posturing.
One thing is for certain the Remain and Clinton campaigns of 2016 are going to be studied for decades to come. Once the dust has settled there should be some very interesting books about them.
Some initial thoughts from Ashcroft:
American voters were crying out for change, yet the Democrats offered its antithesis: the Washington establishment incarnate. People in states and counties the Democrats had come to take for granted worried about their jobs, their futures, prospects for their children, the ballooning cost of healthcare, the state of their roads and bridges, immigration, terrorism, the effect of trade deals on their industries, and America’s place in the world – and the Democratic candidate responded: did you hear what Donald Trump said about an ex-Miss Universe?
The Democrats thought everyone shared their assumptions. Having decided that no decent person could vote for Donald Trump – a candidate backed by a “basket of deplorables” – they seemed to argue that people had a moral responsibility to keep him out of office, irrespective of any other consideration: “our children are watching”, as her ads relentlessly reminded the TV audience.
Morning. That's very good from Ashcroft. The question remains though, is anyone in the US actually listening to what he is saying?
Unless Trump rows back on his stated aims, and to be fair he seems to be doing just that, the Democrats need to come up with a strategy for addressing the problems of those who have lost out to globalisation. They need a new type of candidate for four years time.
Peter Sallis? Vera Lynn? Kök Douglas? Geraldissimo Kaufperson? Mrs Trellis of North Wales? The Eternal Realm yet awaits numerous heroic revolutionary pioneers, as well as the gradually-senescent vast plethora of workers, soldiers, peasants, strivers, strugglers, bourgeois intellectuals, littérateurs, salonistes, flâneurs, booliaks, treacle-pudding maniacs, pobblequacks, bumpkins, trumpkins, sensiblists and sillyites.
We seem to live in a time of very few sensiblists.
Although Captain, my Captain Sensible is still with us, if that counts....
Individuals buying EU citizenship if they want it? What's the downside? It's be no different than people having dual citizenship?
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
If there was a reciprocal arrangement then it would lead to the bizarre situation of all comers purchasing passports for cash. Holding a EU passport would grant them unrestricted access to the UK and of course social welfare and the NHS. Within years if not even months the system in the UK would collapse under this onslaught. Of course that's precisely what the EU wish to happen by this suggestion to drive a wedge.
Never ever trust anything the unelected , unrepresentative EU say or do. It's always based around their project for the people and paying more money to them or cash for access for the privilege.
Of course there will always be a number of quislings that would happily join Vichy Europe at the expense of the rest of the world and the U.K.
Kevin Maguire: RIP Fidel Castro, 90. Cuba's revolutionary leader outlived US Presidents who tried to have him assassinated.
So revolutionary that he avoided proper elections for 50 years while the country remained in the dark ages before finally handing over power directly to his brother.
Meanwhile, a police investigation seems to have been so badly botched that a serial killer seems to have been able unnecessarily to continue his spree:
Rubbish; in fact, I'd say bullsh*t. Regardless of whether you supported Trump or Clinton, you should be applauding these recounts.
I wish people would just use a little intelligence on this. The Internet is just one potential attack vector for the machines; there are plenty of others. Yet the companies who create the machines, and the people who order them, seem not to care.
Think about that for a minute: these machines are not fit for purpose yet they are used. As was shown yesterday, the Michigan machines are relatively easy to reprogram (your hardest problem if you have access to the machines might be finding a laptop with a serial port, or a USB<->Serial dongle that works).
As an example, at least one PA state uses the Sequoia AVC Advantage®, by the company that was behind the infamous 'hanging chad' controversy because they knowingly supplied poor-quality punched cards. They also tried to take computer scientists to court when they were sent machines to perform a security audit on.
So not only is the article you linked to wrong, it is blind, dumb and stupid. A bit like the people who chose to use such systems; though that is giving them credit - the worry is that they know what they were doing and did so because the systems can be gamed.
Rubbish; in fact, I'd say bullsh*t. Regardless of whether you supported Trump or Clinton, you should be applauding these recounts.
I wish people would just use a little intelligence on this. The Internet is just one potential attack vector for the machines; there are plenty of others. Yet the companies who create the machines, and the people who order them, seem not to care.
Think about that for a minute: these machines are not fit for purpose yet they are used. As was shown yesterday, the Michigan machines are relatively easy to reprogram (your hardest problem if you have access to the machines might be finding a laptop with a serial port, or a USB<->Serial dongle that works).
As an example, at least one PA state uses the Sequoia AVC Advantage®, by the company that was behind the infamous 'hanging chad' controversy because they knowingly supplied poor-quality punched cards. They also tried to take computer scientists to court when they were sent machines to perform a security audit on.
So not only is the article you linked to wrong, it is blind, dumb and stupid. A bit like the people who chose to use such systems; though that is giving them credit - the worry is that they know what they were doing and did so because the systems can be gamed.
If the threat of vote manipulation is so high, then why isn't any effort being made to verify the New Hampshire count? I'm guessing because it voted the right way.
Rubbish; in fact, I'd say bullsh*t. Regardless of whether you supported Trump or Clinton, you should be applauding these recounts.
I wish people would just use a little intelligence on this. The Internet is just one potential attack vector for the machines; there are plenty of others. Yet the companies who create the machines, and the people who order them, seem not to care.
Think about that for a minute: these machines are not fit for purpose yet they are used. As was shown yesterday, the Michigan machines are relatively easy to reprogram (your hardest problem if you have access to the machines might be finding a laptop with a serial port, or a USB<->Serial dongle that works).
As an example, at least one PA state uses the Sequoia AVC Advantage®, by the company that was behind the infamous 'hanging chad' controversy because they knowingly supplied poor-quality punched cards. They also tried to take computer scientists to court when they were sent machines to perform a security audit on.
So not only is the article you linked to wrong, it is blind, dumb and stupid. A bit like the people who chose to use such systems; though that is giving them credit - the worry is that they know what they were doing and did so because the systems can be gamed.
But even with a recount, I'm not sure we will ever know how much bigger Trump's victory would have been if all those well-meaning liberal hackers hadn't been so busy.....
Individuals buying EU citizenship if they want it? What's the downside? It's be no different than people having dual citizenship?
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
If there was a reciprocal arrangement then it would lead to the bizarre situation of all comers purchasing passports for cash. Holding a EU passport would grant them unrestricted access to the UK and of course social welfare and the NHS. Within years if not even months the system in the UK would collapse under this onslaught. Of course that's precisely what the EU wish to happen by this suggestion to drive a wedge.
Never ever trust anything the unelected , unrepresentative EU say or do. It's always based around their project for the people and paying more money to them or cash for access for the privilege.
Of course there will always be a number of quislings that would happily join Vichy Europe at the expense of the rest of the world and the U.K.
Hardly! Any reciprocal deal for EU citizens would mean the status quo rather than the apocalypse.
I, like many others, would happily take up dual citizenship of the EU and UK if it were to exist. Quite apart from the utility of free movement and ability to retire to the sun it would match my identity.
Already this morning we've seen Angela Merkel compared with Robert Mugabe and Remainers called quislings. All in a day's work for the WTW Leavers.
You really should go back through the multitude of the Brexit threads and reread the hundreds of eye wateringly, abusive and insulting comments made by Remainers against anyone that had the temerity to even have a slightly different view to Europhiles. Of course such comments and abuse is all perfectly acceptable as long as you toe the EU line while you charge headlong into your European superstate utopia.
Some of us are wiser and less blinkered, take a world view and saw the multitude of pitfalls that the EU project entailed but each to their own I suppose. Some of us are also democratic and grown up enough to accept the will of the people whether we like it or not. You and the EU cluster feck with their long history of ignoring votes, referendums and what the majorities actually want obviously still have some way to go.
The quietest day on PB.com for a long time .... hardly surprising really with loads of rather silly wishful thinking from Remainers on the one hand dreaming of a second referendum and delusioned LibDems on the other, dreaming of victory in the Richmond Park by-election.
Rubbish; in fact, I'd say bullsh*t. Regardless of whether you supported Trump or Clinton, you should be applauding these recounts.
I wish people would just use a little intelligence on this. The Internet is just one potential attack vector for the machines; there are plenty of others. Yet the companies who create the machines, and the people who order them, seem not to care.
Think about that for a minute: these machines are not fit for purpose yet they are used. As was shown yesterday, the Michigan machines are relatively easy to reprogram (your hardest problem if you have access to the machines might be finding a laptop with a serial port, or a USB<->Serial dongle that works).
As an example, at least one PA state uses the Sequoia AVC Advantage®, by the company that was behind the infamous 'hanging chad' controversy because they knowingly supplied poor-quality punched cards. They also tried to take computer scientists to court when they were sent machines to perform a security audit on.
So not only is the article you linked to wrong, it is blind, dumb and stupid. A bit like the people who chose to use such systems; though that is giving them credit - the worry is that they know what they were doing and did so because the systems can be gamed.
If the threat of vote manipulation is so high, then why isn't any effort being made to verify the New Hampshire count? I'm guessing because it voted the right way.
Why is that of any relevance? Of course people who lost will want recounts: the point is that the voting systems are so flawed that such calls are utterly reasonable. And for the record, I'd say that if the votes were the other way as well.
Like the court case over A50, the rights or wrongs of their case are what matters; not their motives for bringing their case.
Rubbish; in fact, I'd say bullsh*t. Regardless of whether you supported Trump or Clinton, you should be applauding these recounts.
I wish people would just use a little intelligence on this. The Internet is just one potential attack vector for the machines; there are plenty of others. Yet the companies who create the machines, and the people who order them, seem not to care.
Think about that for a minute: these machines are not fit for purpose yet they are used. As was shown yesterday, the Michigan machines are relatively easy to reprogram (your hardest problem if you have access to the machines might be finding a laptop with a serial port, or a USB<->Serial dongle that works).
As an example, at least one PA state uses the Sequoia AVC Advantage®, by the company that was behind the infamous 'hanging chad' controversy because they knowingly supplied poor-quality punched cards. They also tried to take computer scientists to court when they were sent machines to perform a security audit on.
So not only is the article you linked to wrong, it is blind, dumb and stupid. A bit like the people who chose to use such systems; though that is giving them credit - the worry is that they know what they were doing and did so because the systems can be gamed.
But even with a recount, I'm not sure we will ever know how much bigger Trump's victory would have been if all those well-meaning liberal hackers hadn't been so busy.....
It's perfectly possible that the fraud was on the other side, or even no side: someone or some group interfering with the election for LOLs. But as ever, the point goes whooshing merrily over your head.
Already this morning we've seen Angela Merkel compared with Robert Mugabe and Remainers called quislings. All in a day's work for the WTW Leavers.
Yes, I'm really keen for one of them to set our their vision; how are they going to improve the lot of the disenchanted in a world where automation is only growing, companies are global and third worlders see borders as an inconvenience, not a barrier? How will they deliver for their foot soldiers? Where does the post truth era end up? What point do we stop smashing things down? My bet involves four horsemen but maybe someone else can come up with a more positive vision.
Why is that of any relevance? Of course people who lost will want recounts: the point is that the voting systems are so flawed that such calls are utterly reasonable. And for the record, I'd say that if the votes were the other way as well.
Like the court case over A50, the rights or wrongs of their case are what matters; not their motives for bringing their case.
Looks like about two thirds of towns use optical scanners to count the vote (and I bet it is the larger towns that do), the same method as in the WI count, yet there are no calls for the vote to be checked there. Fair enough to say that the counting method is not good enough, but at least be consistent. If it isn't good enough for WI, then it isn't good enough for NH.
Kevin Maguire: RIP Fidel Castro, 90. Cuba's revolutionary leader outlived US Presidents who tried to have him assassinated.
There's nothing really wrong with this. Whatever you think of him US Presidents did try to assassinate him. What's odd in a way is how nowadays being revoluntionary means preserving things in aspic.
Individuals buying EU citizenship if they want it? What's the downside? It's be no different than people having dual citizenship?
If Brits that want EU citizenship can pay — put your money where your mouth is Remainers —and if we don't have to offer any reciprocal arrangement, then it is a win-win for the UK. Obviously there is a cost, but it will be borne by those that want EU citizenship. There has to be a gotcha as this is verging on the too good to be true.
If there was a reciprocal arrangement then it would lead to the bizarre situation of all comers purchasing passports for cash. Holding a EU passport would grant them unrestricted access to the UK and of course social welfare and the NHS. Within years if not even months the system in the UK would collapse under this onslaught. Of course that's precisely what the EU wish to happen by this suggestion to drive a wedge.
Never ever trust anything the unelected , unrepresentative EU say or do. It's always based around their project for the people and paying more money to them or cash for access for the privilege.
Of course there will always be a number of quislings that would happily join Vichy Europe at the expense of the rest of the world and the U.K.
Hardly! Any reciprocal deal for EU citizens would mean the status quo rather than the apocalypse.
I, like many others, would happily take up dual citizenship of the EU and UK if it were to exist. Quite apart from the utility of free movement and ability to retire to the sun it would match my identity.
You missed the entire point.
The statement by the original poster inferred anyone world wide would get access to a EU passport for a cash sum and as such access to the UK without further checks and verifications. " cash for passports"
Given the way the EU treats its scurity it probably amounts to the same thing though.
Again you also equate directly the geographical region we all I've in with the corrupt undemocratic system of government of the EU. Apples and pears of course but not unsurprising.
Why is that of any relevance? Of course people who lost will want recounts: the point is that the voting systems are so flawed that such calls are utterly reasonable. And for the record, I'd say that if the votes were the other way as well.
Like the court case over A50, the rights or wrongs of their case are what matters; not their motives for bringing their case.
Looks like about two thirds of towns use optical scanners to count the vote (and I bet it is the larger towns that do), the same method as in the WI count, yet there are no calls for the vote to be checked there. Fair enough to say that the counting method is not good enough, but at least be consistent. If it isn't good enough for WI, then it isn't good enough for NH.
Comments
* OK, it's not really Bordeaux. But it's the best Bordeaux style wine under about two hundred and fifty quid a bottle. I buy a case of six every year, and drink it when I have something to celebrate.
The reason why the overall Democrat lead is so much higher in 2016 than in 2000 is the enormous (and useless) lead they've built up in California - from under 1.3 million in 2000 to over 3.8 million in 2016.
With the exception of Utah, with its Independent candidate effect, the state which has swung most to the Democrats since 2000 is California.
For a 22 year old, we can have a much lower fee: say 3k/year. Very little unskilled migration happens, especially if you have to pay the first year up front. I might allow a year's "holiday" for people who've (paid to) study in the UK, but I wouldn't complicate things any further than that. I'm very relaxed about whether the fee is paid by the employer or the individual.
If we have 1m migrants in the UK (not coming to, but resident, which is probably a lot fewer than there are today), and they pay an average of 10k, that would work out at ten billion pounds a year, allowing us to lower other taxes.
Basically, let the free market decide.
It really matters - if it's an annual fee, then once @viewcode has been stripped of all his/her financial assets, his/her protection against torture (say) lapses all too soon.
Do you have any recommendations when it comes to the Monte Bello vintages? I have seen the 2010 get decent reviews.
There are quite a few decent looking wines from California but I think I have missed the boat on many of them and they are kinda pricey now. Although some of the Stag's Leap stuff is reasonably priced.
In America, you can buy the Estate Cabernet Sauvignion for $25, which is terrific value. It loses a bit of the character, but is a much better wine that a twenty quid bottle of Bordeaux. In the UK, the Estate is forty quid and therefore a bit too close in price to the Monte Bello. (And forty quid is a hard price point. Far too expensive for regular drinking. You need to be really good, and it's just not good enough.)
There are some lovely Stag's Leap wines. They are big without being absurd. Perhaps a little over-engineered (just too smooth...), but terrific value.
This Council of Europe: http://www.coe.int/en/ founded in London in 1949.
Not this one, the European Council: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/
Not to be confused: https://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/do-not-get-confused?desktop=true
Sounds like the Economist is beginning to shift its view on the Euro a teensy bit.
Christ - do people really think European mainlanders are better at policing than the Brits? Whatever happened to that old Heaven and Hell joke?
http://www.jokes4us.com/ethnicjokes/italianjokes/italianheavenandhelljokes.html
Italy and France (and historically Spain) had economies where constant inflation and devaluation made up for the deliberately inflexible labour markets. If your real income dropped 3% every year through inflation, your economy could adjust relatively easily. If your exchange rate is fixed, you need to have a labour market where the price of work can change. We have that. The Dutch have that. The Italians do not.
Spain has proved that you can change, and go from an inflexible model to a flexible one. But is there the political will in France and Italy to do that? I suspect not.
Some of the wines on sale in the States seem rediculously cheap in comparison to here. Like supermarket prices.
I need to do a bit more research on the Stag's Leap wine. It seems really good value (at the moment).
No one in the French political class remembers the inter war period and it's aftermath.
For value California reds, I like some of the funkier grape combinations, particularly from non-Napa areas such as Paso Robles. I like Peachy Canyon and Liberty School
http://www.pasowine.com/wineries/
* as diametrically opposed ways of coming to the stage of accepting the need for change, the latter being the quicker and less damaging.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/cdn.relaymedia.com/amp/billypenn.com/2016/11/23/a-pennsylvania-recount-for-hillary-clinton-a-nightmare-scenario-explained/?client=safari
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/25/election-recount-underway-in-wisconsin-after-stein-files-petition/
American voters were crying out for change, yet the Democrats offered its antithesis: the Washington establishment incarnate. People in states and counties the Democrats had come to take for granted worried about their jobs, their futures, prospects for their children, the ballooning cost of healthcare, the state of their roads and bridges, immigration, terrorism, the effect of trade deals on their industries, and America’s place in the world – and the Democratic candidate responded: did you hear what Donald Trump said about an ex-Miss Universe?
The Democrats thought everyone shared their assumptions. Having decided that no decent person could vote for Donald Trump – a candidate backed by a “basket of deplorables” – they seemed to argue that people had a moral responsibility to keep him out of office, irrespective of any other consideration: “our children are watching”, as her ads relentlessly reminded the TV audience.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/11/if-you-dont-listen-to-the-voters-someone-else-will-the-real-lesson-of-trump/
In case the latter sounds far-fetched, bear in mind that Juniper firewalls - which are expensive machines designed by experts with security in mind, and run by highly security-conscious organizations like the US military, had a backdoor that went unnoticed for years. This can be done either by bribing/coercing an insider or by hacking the machine of somebody with credentials to work on the code, which *will* be connected to the internet.
This is quite hard to detect even with excellent systems, open source code and good procedures, and the systems and procedures we're talking about here are horrible.
http://www.lesechos.fr/economie-france/budget-fiscalite/0211524465175-royaume-uni-etats-unis-et-suisse-parmi-les-destinations-privilegiees-2045324.php
A stupid idea to have supporters actually doing the counting if you want to result to be viewed without suspicion.
...... While they might make us feel better in the short term, the benefits of feeling intellectually and morally superior to the man who just defied all polls and pundits to become the president-elect of the United States will certainly prove ephemeral.
https://newrepublic.com/article/138996/liberal-response-trump-devolving-outrage-porn
Fidel Castro had held onto power longer than any other living national leader except Queen Elizabeth II
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/world/americas/fidel-castro-dies.html
So I see the CIA finally got their man...
Although Captain, my Captain Sensible is still with us, if that counts....
Never ever trust anything the unelected , unrepresentative EU say or do. It's always based around their project for the people and paying more money to them or cash for access for the privilege.
Of course there will always be a number of quislings that would happily join Vichy Europe at the expense of the rest of the world and the U.K.
I can see why Maguire is a fan.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/25/stephen-port-metropolitan-police-gay-men-murder
It would be good to see some searching questions asked by our politicians about this too. Just what are they doing at present?
I wish people would just use a little intelligence on this. The Internet is just one potential attack vector for the machines; there are plenty of others. Yet the companies who create the machines, and the people who order them, seem not to care.
Think about that for a minute: these machines are not fit for purpose yet they are used.
As was shown yesterday, the Michigan machines are relatively easy to reprogram (your hardest problem if you have access to the machines might be finding a laptop with a serial port, or a USB<->Serial dongle that works).
As an example, at least one PA state uses the Sequoia AVC Advantage®, by the company that was behind the infamous 'hanging chad' controversy because they knowingly supplied poor-quality punched cards. They also tried to take computer scientists to court when they were sent machines to perform a security audit on.
Just read the following and work out the myriad of attack vectors (and they can be attacked via the Internet; the cartridges have modems):
https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/voting-equipment/sequoia/avc-advantage/
So not only is the article you linked to wrong, it is blind, dumb and stupid. A bit like the people who chose to use such systems; though that is giving them credit - the worry is that they know what they were doing and did so because the systems can be gamed.
FPT: Mr. kle4, the Farscape muppets were excellent, and far better than could've been achieved with CGI or heavily made-up actors.
I, like many others, would happily take up dual citizenship of the EU and UK if it were to exist. Quite apart from the utility of free movement and ability to retire to the sun it would match my identity.
Some of us are wiser and less blinkered, take a world view and saw the multitude of pitfalls that the EU project entailed but each to their own I suppose. Some of us are also democratic and grown up enough to accept the will of the people whether we like it or not. You and the EU cluster feck with their long history of ignoring votes, referendums and what the majorities actually want obviously still have some way to go.
Like the court case over A50, the rights or wrongs of their case are what matters; not their motives for bringing their case.
As it happens, New Hampshire appears to use a mixture of systems:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-voting-new-hamphire-style--20160209-story.html
If you think that wanting Britain to remain in the EU is comparable to being a treacherous Nazi sympathiser, you are deranged.
Sadly, it is apparent that many Leavers sincerely believe this lunacy.
The statement by the original poster inferred anyone world wide would get access to a EU passport for a cash sum and as such access to the UK without further checks and verifications. " cash for passports"
Given the way the EU treats its scurity it probably amounts to the same thing though.
Again you also equate directly the geographical region we all I've in with the corrupt undemocratic system of government of the EU. Apples and pears of course but not unsurprising.
http://www.wcax.com/story/33783609/nh-election-recounts-change-2-outcomes-in-house-races