Donald misunderstanding it's not necessarily an 'award' or just that he wants to be seen to be huuuge, regardless of whether it is for good or bad reasons?
FPT: Mr. Eagles, you can't discount the events of 2016 when looking at earlier concepts. It's like when RTD buggered up Who canon with the Time War or when the new trilogy threw out the Star Wars Expanded Universe.
Alas, poor Grand Admiral Thrawn.
On-topic: could make a case for Farage, given the EU vote and his intervention for Trump.
I can't help feeling that, had she won, Hillary would equally have been president of the 'Divided States of America', although I suspect that Time magazine would not have made the point.
I wonder whom they would have chosen if Hillary had won?
The chemistry between Trump and Merkel will be fascinating.
He's said far harsher things about people he's subsequently given jobs to so no-one should read into his tweets that he really is a convinced opponent of anything Merkel stands for.
I can't help feeling that, had she won, Hillary would equally have been president of the 'Divided States of America', although I suspect that Time magazine would not have made the point.
I wonder whom they would have chosen if Hillary had won?
Hasn't every new POTUS in the last 40 years has won except George Bush Senior who lost out to the endangered Earth.
The chemistry between Trump and Merkel will be fascinating.
He's said far harsher things about people he's subsequently given jobs to so no-one should read into his tweets that he really is a convinced opponent of anything Merkel stands for.
She stands for bettering Germany, he stands for bettering the USA - they may both do good or bad jobs of it, and in very different styles, but I'm sure they can appreciate putting your country above all else.
The chemistry between Trump and Merkel will be fascinating.
He's said far harsher things about people he's subsequently given jobs to so no-one should read into his tweets that he really is a convinced opponent of anything Merkel stands for.
She stands for bettering Germany, he stands for bettering the USA - they may both do good or bad jobs of it, and in very different styles, but I'm sure they can appreciate putting your country above all else.
I meant, to use a term du jour, on the international plane. A lot of Eurosceptics are convinced that Trump hates the EU, simply on the basis that he was happy to associate himself with the Brexit vote. It ain't necessarily so.
I can't help feeling that, had she won, Hillary would equally have been president of the 'Divided States of America', although I suspect that Time magazine would not have made the point.
I wonder whom they would have chosen if Hillary had won?
If like me you keep chickens, ducks or other birds, even if only a few, please be aware that as of this morning there is now a country wide prevention zone in force across England. All birds must be kept under cover/indoors and separated from any possible contact with wild birds.
This is due to the very nasty (for birds) avian flu outbreak on the continent. It is not yet present in the UK but the fear is it is only a matter of time.
Any presidential vote in The USA results in a divided state.
There are degrees of division though. 2016 was certainly the most divisive in my lifetime. When was the last that was as bad? 1968 would be one contender? If not that, then which?
Any presidential vote in The USA results in a divided state.
There are degrees of division though. 2016 was certainly the most divisive in my lifetime. When was the last that was as bad? 1968 would be one contender? If not that, then which?
2000, although that was due to the post vote situation.
Any presidential vote in The USA results in a divided state.
There are degrees of division though. 2016 was certainly the most divisive in my lifetime. When was the last that was as bad? 1968 would be one contender? If not that, then which?
Goldwater 1964, hard to consider a more divisive candidate other than George Wallace. Ronald Reagan was almost portrayed as the devil incarnate, but as you say there are different degrees of division.
"The UK’s position is very easy to grasp for anyone who read the referendum ballot paper or has listened to the Prime Minister. The UK is going to leave the EU. There is no such thing as a single market we can remain in on leaving, and no-one on the Vote Leave campaign suggested there was. As the Uk wishes outside the EU to negotiate trade agreements with non EU countries we clearly will not be in the Customs union. The PM has ruled out EEA membership. This means there is not a lot to negotiate. We will not negotiate our independence with the rest of the EU – that is an absurd contradiction. We will offer them no new barriers to their trade with us, and I expect after a lot of huffing and puffing they will want to accept that offer. If they don’t we will trade with them as most favoured nation under WTO rules, and they will be the big losers on tariffs as a result."
re Labour's new customs union policy - does that mean they don't want new free trade deals with the rest of the world ?
It means that they, probably rightly, consider that the minor disadvantage of not being able to negotiate our own trade deals is outweighed by the humongous advantage of not wrecking our car industry.
Should I take the 10/1 on Chris Grayling as next to leave the cabinet in light of the below?
It's a decision only you can make, anything under ~ 18-1 you need a damned good reason to though. I've made an exception once on this general rule for Dr Fox @10-1, because he is a) Liam Fox and b) it was a free bet from the Sun.
Whats yr cumulative book on the contenders so far.
re Labour's new customs union policy - does that mean they don't want new free trade deals with the rest of the world ?
It means that they, probably rightly, consider that the minor disadvantage of not being able to negotiate our own trade deals is outweighed by the humongous advantage of not wrecking our car industry.
Under what circumstances would the EU invoke tariffs on our car industry that wouldn't result in the mutual destruction of a multitude of their industries ?
re Labour's new customs union policy - does that mean they don't want new free trade deals with the rest of the world ?
It means that they, probably rightly, consider that the minor disadvantage of not being able to negotiate our own trade deals is outweighed by the humongous advantage of not wrecking our car industry.
Under what circumstances would the EU invoke tariffs on our car industry that wouldn't result in the mutual destruction of a multitude of their industries ?
re Labour's new customs union policy - does that mean they don't want new free trade deals with the rest of the world ?
It means that they, probably rightly, consider that the minor disadvantage of not being able to negotiate our own trade deals is outweighed by the humongous advantage of not wrecking our car industry.
I think its definitely something we want to end up with, but I'm not sure the government pre-agreeing to it strengthens their negotiation hand with the EU. It might be a poor, potentially massively backfiring bargaining chip but a shown two of clubs on the table is inferior to one kept in hand.
Should I take the 10/1 on Chris Grayling as next to leave the cabinet in light of the below?
It's a decision only you can make, anything under ~ 18-1 you need a damned good reason to though. I've made an exception once on this general rule for Dr Fox @10-1, because he is a) Liam Fox and b) it was a free bet from the Sun.
Whats yr cumulative book on the contenders so far.
Or to put it another way, Verhofstadt (I think ?) sits down
"So you want to stay in the customs union, indeed need to do so to pass this through your parliament. What are you prepared to offer in return for that ?"
Laudable as it may be we don't want to hand all our 'twos' to strengthen the EU's hand.
Or to put it another way, Verhofstadt (I think ?) sits down
"So you want to stay in the customs union, indeed need to do so to pass this through your parliament. What are you prepared to offer in return for that ?"
Laudable as it may be we don't want to hand all our 'twos' to strengthen the EU's hand.
As TGOHF point out, our EU friends will be just as keen as us not to wreck their car-industry supply-chains. The German car industry alone uses parts from over 100 UK manufacturing sites. So it could be a logical outcome, and one which could be presented to domestic audiences rather neatly:
EU politicians: "See! We said no cherry-picking, and the UK is no longer in the Single Market! It is reduced to the status of Turkey!"
UK politicians: "See! We said we could protect out exporters, and this gives us tariff-free, zero paperwork access to the Single Market! And without having to concede control of our borders or submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ."
So there could be a basis of part of a deal there. Services would remain the big stumbling-block, of course.
Interestingly Thornberry committed Labour to staying inside the customs union—which would mean that the UK could not do any comprehensive free-trade deals post Brexit. Indeed, if Britain stays inside the customs union, it really won’t be Brexit in the proper sense of the word.
Or to put it another way, Verhofstadt (I think ?) sits down
"So you want to stay in the customs union, indeed need to do so to pass this through your parliament. What are you prepared to offer in return for that ?"
Laudable as it may be we don't want to hand all our 'twos' to strengthen the EU's hand.
As TGOHF point out, our EU friends will be just as keen not to wreck their car-industry supply-chains. So it could be a logical outcome, and one which could be presented to domestic audiences rather neatly:
EU politicians: "See! We said no cherry-picking, and the UK is no longer in the Single Market! It is reduced to the status of Turkey!"
UK politicians: "See! We said we could protect out exporters, and this gives us tariff-free, zero paperwork access to the Single Market! And without having to concede control of our borders or submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ."
So there could be a basis of part of a deal there. Services would remain the big stumbling-block, of course.
The general rule of a good deal is that both parties agree it is a good deal.
In practice I think trade in manufactured goods and agricultural produce will be tarrif and barrier free, but services and other parts will be outside the single market. Hard Brexit plus cars and food in other words.
Interestingly Thornberry committed Labour to staying inside the customs union—which would mean that the UK could not do any comprehensive free-trade deals post Brexit. Indeed, if Britain stays inside the customs union, it really won’t be Brexit in the proper sense of the word.
Interestingly Thornberry committed Labour to staying inside the customs union—which would mean that the UK could not do any comprehensive free-trade deals post Brexit. Indeed, if Britain stays inside the customs union, it really won’t be Brexit in the proper sense of the word.
re Labour's new customs union policy - does that mean they don't want new free trade deals with the rest of the world ?
It means that they, probably rightly, consider that the minor disadvantage of not being able to negotiate our own trade deals is outweighed by the humongous advantage of not wrecking our car industry.
I think its definitely something we want to end up with, but I'm not sure the government pre-agreeing to it strengthens their negotiation hand with the EU. It might be a poor, potentially massively backfiring bargaining chip but a shown two of clubs on the table is inferior to one kept in hand.
That's the whole point that a lot of people don't get - that specific details of desired outcomes from negotiations publicly stated in advance of them starting, is sending our troops into battle with one hand tied behind their back.
In practice I think trade in manufactured goods and agricultural produce will be tarrif and barrier free, but services and other parts will be outside the single market. Hard Brexit plus cars and food in other words.
That's certainly what would make sense. However, 'barrier-free' means customs union, otherwise you have to have customs checks, certificates of origin and all that dross. That's a pain if you're running a tight supply chain, or if you're a small company without the necessary customs-documentation expertise.
Interestingly Thornberry committed Labour to staying inside the customs union—which would mean that the UK could not do any comprehensive free-trade deals post Brexit. Indeed, if Britain stays inside the customs union, it really won’t be Brexit in the proper sense of the word.
Yep that was not one of the difficult ones was it?
Slightly more difficult, and relevant to the last thread, is the Supreme Court decision on Brexit. I was gainfully employed this morning and didn't see it but the chat at lunch was that Pannick got a bit of a doing this morning. Is there value in the government winning? Maybe there is.
Interestingly Thornberry committed Labour to staying inside the customs union—which would mean that the UK could not do any comprehensive free-trade deals post Brexit. Indeed, if Britain stays inside the customs union, it really won’t be Brexit in the proper sense of the word.
Oh, goody, someone else confusing their opinion with the meaning of words.
Would the UK remain a member of the European Union if we did this? If "yes", it isn't Brexit. If "no", it is Brexit.
Anything else is personal opinion and wasn't on the ballot paper.
There is already precedent in the British Isles - the Channel Islands are in the Customs Union, but are not in the EU and have controls on immigration.....
The chemistry between Trump and Merkel will be fascinating.
He's said far harsher things about people he's subsequently given jobs to so no-one should read into his tweets that he really is a convinced opponent of anything Merkel stands for.
Yes, yes, yes, we know we shouldn't take him seriously or literally.
Oh Lord, Louise Mensch is opining on the Supreme Court case
If Louise Mensch's opinion is that the Supreme Court should caption the barrister or judge speaking, and mute the microphones of everyone else (especially if they have a hacking cough) then she is entirely correct.
Or to put it another way, Verhofstadt (I think ?) sits down
"So you want to stay in the customs union, indeed need to do so to pass this through your parliament. What are you prepared to offer in return for that ?"
Laudable as it may be we don't want to hand all our 'twos' to strengthen the EU's hand.
As TGOHF point out, our EU friends will be just as keen as us not to wreck their car-industry supply-chains. The German car industry alone uses parts from over 100 UK manufacturing sites. So it could be a logical outcome, and one which could be presented to domestic audiences rather neatly:
EU politicians: "See! We said no cherry-picking, and the UK is no longer in the Single Market! It is reduced to the status of Turkey!"
UK politicians: "See! We said we could protect out exporters, and this gives us tariff-free, zero paperwork access to the Single Market! And without having to concede control of our borders or submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ."
So there could be a basis of part of a deal there. Services would remain the big stumbling-block, of course.
Our being in the customs union is "bigger" to us than it is to Europe. Even if this isn't the case, you shouldn't explicitly state that you 'need' to be in it.
All stems from Cameron's decision not to make the referendum legally binding anyhow...
Yep that was not one of the difficult ones was it?
Slightly more difficult, and relevant to the last thread, is the Supreme Court decision on Brexit. I was gainfully employed this morning and didn't see it but the chat at lunch was that Pannick got a bit of a doing this morning. Is there value in the government winning? Maybe there is.
Interestingly Thornberry committed Labour to staying inside the customs union—which would mean that the UK could not do any comprehensive free-trade deals post Brexit. Indeed, if Britain stays inside the customs union, it really won’t be Brexit in the proper sense of the word.
No single market no customs union or a large number of Brexiters will feel it is not their kind of Brexit.
(They will be the same people of course who constantly whined about how it was "up to the government" to determine Brexit.)
It's fair game for the moderate bit of Labour to have a go at it.
At what point, in the minds of some, did 'Brexit' become a synonym for 'Farageism'? It certainly wasn't during the campaign - in fact Leave were at great pains to assert that Farageism was merely a scare tactic of Project Fear. Yet, thereafter Farageism acquired the status of Leave orthodoxy. It would interesting to pinpoint where and how this came about.
Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?
Interestingly Thornberry committed Labour to staying inside the customs union—which would mean that the UK could not do any comprehensive free-trade deals post Brexit. Indeed, if Britain stays inside the customs union, it really won’t be Brexit in the proper sense of the word.
No single market no customs union or a large number of Brexiters will feel it is not their kind of Brexit.
(They will be the same people of course who constantly whined about how it was "up to the government" to determine Brexit.)
It's fair game for the moderate bit of Labour to have a go at it.
At what point, in the minds of some, did 'Brexit' become a synonym for 'Farageism'? It certainly wasn't during the campaign - in fact Leave were at great pains to assert that Farageism was merely a scare tactic of Project Fear. Yet, thereafter Farageism acquired the status of Leave orthodoxy. It would interesting to pinpoint where and how this came about.
In Farage's mind - while he was in his mama's womb. Of course.
Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?
"Boldly, JLR says the new TRANSCEND project, which is partly funded by the UK government, will help “rebuild the UK’s transmission production”. Jaguar Land Rover currently uses an eight-speed automatic gearbox supplied by German firm ZF; many of its manual gearboxes come from Germany’s Getrag."
"ULTRAN has been a three-year research initiative led by Jaguar Land Rover in a consortium including Ricardo, Tata Steel, Lubrizol, GRM Consulting Ltd, American Axle & Manufacturing and the Universities of Southampton, Newcastle and Warwick – with the support of the UK’s innovation agency, InnovateUK."
"GKN’s integrated electric drive system could transform the EV market. UK firm's integrated drive system produces up to 1475lb ft and will make production in 2019. The company that created the all-wheel drive systems of the BMW i8 and Porsche 918 has produced an innovative electric drive system that can produce up to 1475lb ft of torque."
I get the feeling that things are looking up for reshoring.
Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?
Like the FedEx arrow, once you see it you can't unsee it.
Interestingly Thornberry committed Labour to staying inside the customs union—which would mean that the UK could not do any comprehensive free-trade deals post Brexit. Indeed, if Britain stays inside the customs union, it really won’t be Brexit in the proper sense of the word.
Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?
Like the FedEx arrow, once you see it you can't unsee it.
What's the FedEx arrow thing?
Is it like Colonel Sanders' tie actually being little arms and legs?
Our being in the customs union is "bigger" to us than it is to Europe. Even if this isn't the case, you shouldn't explicitly state that you 'need' to be in it.
I'm not sure it is bigger to us. I agree that nothing should be conceded in advance, which is why Theresa May is right to try to suppress MP interference in the negotiations. Her mistake is to be taking too long over it - I think that she has a tendency to act as though the position is static, whereas in politics, as in war, your adversaries are always shifting around and may regroup before you've executed your plan.
Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?
Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?
Like the FedEx arrow, once you see it you can't unsee it.
What's the FedEx arrow thing?
Is it like Colonel Sanders' tie actually being little arms and legs?
Look at the white space between the last E and the X It makes a rightwards pointing arrow (and this is deliberate)
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
@paulwaugh: IDS in Brexit motion debate: "I'd rather stay in [the EU], than stay in the Customs Union..."
Because being in a Customs Union would prohibit us from entering into free trade deals with other countries. IDS said that the US Congress has already produced preliminary legislation to enable a UK-US trade agreement.
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
Don't forget the 16 million traitors
Something should be done about them, don't you think?
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
Don't forget the 16 million traitors
Something should be done about them, don't you think?
We're undeniably in a minority.
On tinder dry technical legal grounds we should win the case - but "justice" is the governments' potential out I feel. I have no idea if law trumps justice or vice versa though.
Edit: Alastair has answered my point eloquently below.
Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?
Like the FedEx arrow, once you see it you can't unsee it.
What's the FedEx arrow thing?
Is it like Colonel Sanders' tie actually being little arms and legs?
Look at the white space between the last E and the X It makes a rightwards pointing arrow (and this is deliberate)
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.
Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it
re Labour's new customs union policy - does that mean they don't want new free trade deals with the rest of the world ?
It means that they, probably rightly, consider that the minor disadvantage of not being able to negotiate our own trade deals is outweighed by the humongous advantage of not wrecking our car industry.
Under what circumstances would the EU invoke tariffs on our car industry that wouldn't result in the mutual destruction of a multitude of their industries ?
Be realistic..
Umnmm: unfortunately, I don't think that's true. Because the auto industry has multi-country supply chains, cutting us 'out' would harm us far more than them. Simply, we don't have enough of an auto component industry in the UK.
Comments
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/674587800835092480
Alas, poor Grand Admiral Thrawn.
On-topic: could make a case for Farage, given the EU vote and his intervention for Trump.
I wonder whom they would have chosen if Hillary had won?
He's said far harsher things about people he's subsequently given jobs to so no-one should read into his tweets that he really is a convinced opponent of anything Merkel stands for.
Trump's needle:
Margin/(Swing*2)
FL: 0.9%/2.1%
MI: 9.5%/9.7%
PA: 5.4%/6.1%
WI: 6.9%/7.7%
If like me you keep chickens, ducks or other birds, even if only a few, please be aware that as of this morning there is now a country wide prevention zone in force across England. All birds must be kept under cover/indoors and separated from any possible contact with wild birds.
This is due to the very nasty (for birds) avian flu outbreak on the continent. It is not yet present in the UK but the fear is it is only a matter of time.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-protect-poultry-against-avian-flu
Really?
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/11/26/what-are-the-negotiating-aims-of-the-eu-27/
"The UK’s position is very easy to grasp for anyone who read the referendum ballot paper or has listened to the Prime Minister. The UK is going to leave the EU. There is no such thing as a single market we can remain in on leaving, and no-one on the Vote Leave campaign suggested there was. As the Uk wishes outside the EU to negotiate trade agreements with non EU countries we clearly will not be in the Customs union. The PM has ruled out EEA membership. This means there is not a lot to negotiate. We will not negotiate our independence with the rest of the EU – that is an absurd contradiction. We will offer them no new barriers to their trade with us, and I expect after a lot of huffing and puffing they will want to accept that offer. If they don’t we will trade with them as most favoured nation under WTO rules, and they will be the big losers on tariffs as a result."
Paul Joseph Watson
Buzzfeed is close to becoming the left-wing Stormfront. https://t.co/8PGo1vaEr8
https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/806481461864001536
https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/806484087024263168
Not the happiest of metaphors, but he didn't really call the EU 'the enemy'.....
Whats yr cumulative book on the contenders so far.
I am 25s Greening, 10s Fox.
I think adding too many feels a bit muggy.
Be realistic..
"So you want to stay in the customs union, indeed need to do so to pass this through your parliament. What are you prepared to offer in return for that ?"
Laudable as it may be we don't want to hand all our 'twos' to strengthen the EU's hand.
EU politicians: "See! We said no cherry-picking, and the UK is no longer in the Single Market! It is reduced to the status of Turkey!"
UK politicians: "See! We said we could protect out exporters, and this gives us tariff-free, zero paperwork access to the Single Market! And without having to concede control of our borders or submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ."
So there could be a basis of part of a deal there. Services would remain the big stumbling-block, of course.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/pmqs-emily-thornberrys-battle-customs-union/
In practice I think trade in manufactured goods and agricultural produce will be tarrif and barrier free, but services and other parts will be outside the single market. Hard Brexit plus cars and food in other words.
(They will be the same people of course who constantly whined about how it was "up to the government" to determine Brexit.)
It's fair game for the moderate bit of Labour to have a go at it.
Would the UK remain a member of the European Union if we did this?
If "yes", it isn't Brexit.
If "no", it is Brexit.
Anything else is personal opinion and wasn't on the ballot paper.
https://twitter.com/SheldanKeay/status/806495834548346880
Slightly more difficult, and relevant to the last thread, is the Supreme Court decision on Brexit. I was gainfully employed this morning and didn't see it but the chat at lunch was that Pannick got a bit of a doing this morning. Is there value in the government winning? Maybe there is.
One day someone will.........
All stems from Cameron's decision not to make the referendum legally binding anyhow...
Who was advising him on that ?
"Boldly, JLR says the new TRANSCEND project, which is partly funded by the UK government, will help “rebuild the UK’s transmission production”. Jaguar Land Rover currently uses an eight-speed automatic gearbox supplied by German firm ZF; many of its manual gearboxes come from Germany’s Getrag."
"ULTRAN has been a three-year research initiative led by Jaguar Land Rover in a consortium including Ricardo, Tata Steel, Lubrizol, GRM Consulting Ltd, American Axle & Manufacturing and the Universities of Southampton, Newcastle and Warwick – with the support of the UK’s innovation agency, InnovateUK."
"GKN’s integrated electric drive system could transform the EV market. UK firm's integrated drive system produces up to 1475lb ft and will make production in 2019. The company that created the all-wheel drive systems of the BMW i8 and Porsche 918 has produced an innovative electric drive system that can produce up to 1475lb ft of torque."
I get the feeling that things are looking up for reshoring.
Is it like Colonel Sanders' tie actually being little arms and legs?
http://www.more.com/entertainment/fun/its-arrow-famous-logos-hidden-images/fedex
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html
It makes a rightwards pointing arrow (and this is deliberate)
Something should be done about them, don't you think?
On tinder dry technical legal grounds we should win the case - but "justice" is the governments' potential out I feel. I have no idea if law trumps justice or vice versa though.
Edit: Alastair has answered my point eloquently below.
The Amazon logo.