Well England survive the day. I can only hope that India come to regret batting on quite so long today. If England draw this it will be the best result since SA in the spring.
Morning all: regarding trade deals, it is easiest for countries with non-overlapping areas of activity to enter into trade deals.
Lets not enter into them then. There is no shortcut to economic success.
It's not a shortcut - more opening gates and removing barbed wire from the path.
Economically an FTA is very simpke: an I better offer before or after
Politically it is more difficult to assess. Inevitably there is some sharing of sovereignty. The question is how well defined is that sharing, is it too expensive, and will it be self-expanding over time.
Economically FTAs are not simple because they take place in trade context. It's possible for them to be both good and bad at the same time, thanks to trade diversion and the like. The simple question is whether they advance the flow of trade between two parties. The more complex and more important question is whether they advance or hold back the general trading environment. EU FTAs do both at the same time. EFTA and Japanese FTAs (as models for what we might do post Brexit) don't do either so much.
Correction: the EFTA and Japanese FTAs are protectionist on agriculture, like the EU ones,but don't advance the trading environment so much as the EU ones on standards, services and non tariff barriers.
That's an interesting article, Cyclefree, but much remains unsaid.
I'm persuaded by Joseph Stiglitz's view that countries can choose any two out of economic integration, national sovereignty, and democracy, but not all three. Increasingly, Western countries seem to be opting for two and three, which seems a reasonable trade off to me.
By any reasonable definition that was indeed "Fake News" which means that the big social networks will presumably automatically flag the Guardian as an untrustworthy source and bury it in search results. Cool.
I honestly can't quite believe the desperation from many in the MSM and liberal online news-sites. They're so convinced/scared about losing their marketshare that they'll resort to the sort of overt Approved News that would make China and Russia blush. That Facebook et al are colluding with this nonsense speaks volumes - and if I thought for a minute that Ordinary Person would be persuaded by such pathetic sledgehammers - I'd be very concerned.
It's censorship of the most laughable and obvious variety and ruins what's left of their own credibility. It invites those who've been made pariahs to deep dive into their stories and go full-tilt at errors made by the supposed purveyors of 'real news'. It's 101 not to rubbish your own trade as it will certainly boomerang back in spades.
Yet here we are. The MSM and liberal sites are losing everywhere and frankly, almost all of it is well deserved. They brought it on themselves and thought The People were fools.
Given you've, repeatedly, explained that you neither read newspapers or watch broadcast media as you don't like their version of the truth, how might you know?
Phew, five overs survived - only another ninety to go tomorrow!
India surely vale at 3.3 for the win, against 1.43 for the draw? Interestingly CricViz think the other way, making the draw an 85% chance from here.
Seeing as I've got the match completely wrong till now, I think its best left alone this one !
I started off laying the draw on day 1, as is usual with no rain forecast, but then backed it yesterday.
I'm also in two minds, I think India are more likely than 3.3 to win because the whole England team must be mentally drained after the last two days in the field being hit around the park at a strike rate of nearly 80.
By any reasonable definition that was indeed "Fake News" which means that the big social networks will presumably automatically flag the Guardian as an untrustworthy source and bury it in search results. Cool.
I honestly can't quite believe the desperation from many in the MSM and liberal online news-sites. They're so convinced/scared about losing their marketshare that they'll resort to the sort of overt Approved News that would make China and Russia blush. That Facebook et al are colluding with this nonsense speaks volumes - and if I thought for a minute that Ordinary Person would be persuaded by such pathetic sledgehammers - I'd be very concerned.
It's censorship of the most laughable and obvious variety and ruins what's left of their own credibility. It invites those who've been made pariahs to deep dive into their stories and go full-tilt at errors made by the supposed purveyors of 'real news'. It's 101 not to rubbish your own trade as it will certainly boomerang back in spades.
Yet here we are. The MSM and liberal sites are losing everywhere and frankly, almost all of it is well deserved. They brought it on themselves and thought The People were fools.
Given you've, repeatedly, explained that you neither read newspapers or watch broadcast media as you don't like their version of the truth, how might you know?
People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
It is astonishing that we have a POTUS elect who doesn't have faith in the CIA!
By any reasonable definition that was indeed "Fake News" which means that the big social networks will presumably automatically flag the Guardian as an untrustworthy source and bury it in search results. Cool.
I honestly can't quite believe the desperation from many in the MSM and liberal online news-sites. They're so convinced/scared about losing their marketshare that they'll resort to the sort of overt Approved News that would make China and Russia blush. That Facebook et al are colluding with this nonsense speaks volumes - and if I thought for a minute that Ordinary Person would be persuaded by such pathetic sledgehammers - I'd be very concerned.
It's censorship of the most laughable and obvious variety and ruins what's left of their own credibility. It invites those who've been made pariahs to deep dive into their stories and go full-tilt at errors made by the supposed purveyors of 'real news'. It's 101 not to rubbish your own trade as it will certainly boomerang back in spades.
Yet here we are. The MSM and liberal sites are losing everywhere and frankly, almost all of it is well deserved. They brought it on themselves and thought The People were fools.
Given you've, repeatedly, explained that you neither read newspapers or watch broadcast media as you don't like their version of the truth, how might you know?
People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
It is astonishing that we have a POTUS elect who doesn't have faith in the CIA!
And if the election had gone the other way, we'd have a POTUS-Elect with no confidence in the FBI instead!
By any reasonable definition that was indeed "Fake News" which means that the big social networks will presumably automatically flag the Guardian as an untrustworthy source and bury it in search results. Cool.
I honestly can't quite believe the desperation from many in the MSM and liberal online news-sites. They're so convinced/scared about losing their marketshare that they'll resort to the sort of overt Approved News that would make China and Russia blush. That Facebook et al are colluding with this nonsense speaks volumes - and if I thought for a minute that Ordinary Person would be persuaded by such pathetic sledgehammers - I'd be very concerned.
It's censorship of the most laughable and obvious variety and ruins what's left of their own credibility. It invites those who've been made pariahs to deep dive into their stories and go full-tilt at errors made by the supposed purveyors of 'real news'. It's 101 not to rubbish your own trade as it will certainly boomerang back in spades.
Yet here we are. The MSM and liberal sites are losing everywhere and frankly, almost all of it is well deserved. They brought it on themselves and thought The People were fools.
Given you've, repeatedly, explained that you neither read newspapers or watch broadcast media as you don't like their version of the truth, how might you know?
People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
It is astonishing that we have a POTUS elect who doesn't have faith in the CIA!
A President having little faith in CIA analysis is not new. That it's being done in public is remarkable.
That's the 'right' (sic) kind of of fake news though. It might be a load of meretricious, deceitful, defamatory crap in and of itself, but it's actually attempting to tell a bigger truth about the Islamist enemy within that threatens our very way of life.
The whole article is worth reading but this section sets the tone:
"On the procedural level, the problem is that the negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time. Britain and the EU will have to unpick and then reorder a legal, economic and trading relationship that has been knitted together over the course of more than 40 years. But the two sides will have just two years to achieve and ratify a deal after Britain triggers Article 50 and gives formal notice that it intends to leave.
One of Britain’s most experienced Brussels hands thinks the task is unachievable. “We don’t have the administrative capacity to do it,” he says, “and the EU don’t have the focus.” Britain’s ambassador to the EU has privately come to a similar verdict; Sir Ivan Rogers warned ministers that it could take a decade for the UK to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU.
If there was great goodwill on both sides, the negotiations could doubtless be accelerated. But that is where the politics come into it. There is already plenty of simmering ill will on both sides of the Channel. The British are hoping that, when the talks actually begin, things will calm down. In reality, it is more likely that the opposite will happen. The negotiating process will reveal the immense gap between the operating assumptions of the two sides. As a result, mutual acrimony will quickly increase — and talks could break down irretrievably."
@AlastairMeeks I doubt anything will be agreed till the last week or so of the negotiations, no matter how long the deadline is. Nevertheless Art 50. should be triggered, David Cameron asked the question and the nation answered.
'Adjusting for the current national polling average makes it much closer - Labour are predicted to win the new seat by one percentage point or about 500 votes. It would be Labour's 170th-safest seat according to their calculations.'
But that is not what the current polls are saying. The three most recent polls show an average Tory lead of 10.5% - 11% which would represent a 2% swing from Lab to Con since May 2015. On that basis, Labour would hold Batley & Morley by 5.5% - ie nearly 3000 votes. Interesting that the weekend Opinium poll showed that the Tory lead in England is 8% - compared with 9.5% last year. That would actually be a swing from Con to Lab there of 0.75% and imply a Labour hold in this new seat by 11%.
The whole article is worth reading but this section sets the tone:
"On the procedural level, the problem is that the negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time. Britain and the EU will have to unpick and then reorder a legal, economic and trading relationship that has been knitted together over the course of more than 40 years. But the two sides will have just two years to achieve and ratify a deal after Britain triggers Article 50 and gives formal notice that it intends to leave.
One of Britain’s most experienced Brussels hands thinks the task is unachievable. “We don’t have the administrative capacity to do it,” he says, “and the EU don’t have the focus.” Britain’s ambassador to the EU has privately come to a similar verdict; Sir Ivan Rogers warned ministers that it could take a decade for the UK to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU.
If there was great goodwill on both sides, the negotiations could doubtless be accelerated. But that is where the politics come into it. There is already plenty of simmering ill will on both sides of the Channel. The British are hoping that, when the talks actually begin, things will calm down. In reality, it is more likely that the opposite will happen. The negotiating process will reveal the immense gap between the operating assumptions of the two sides. As a result, mutual acrimony will quickly increase — and talks could break down irretrievably."
This bit
A senior British civil servant provided me with a more realistic assessment. “It’s going to be bloody,” he said, “but we’re just going to have to bash on through and get to the other side.” I smiled at that very British evocation of the wartime spirit. It is just a shame that this war is so pointless and self-defeating.
@AlastairMeeks One of the reasons I initially considered voting leave was the reasoning that surely the Gov't has a fully worked plan to head through if that was the result having asked the question. That it did not was a big moment of realisation I saw thankfully before the vote.
..... Gideon Rachman in the FT worries (like me) about a train crash Brexit: https://www.ft.com/content/9ec6ccec-c5ce-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product The whole article is worth reading but this section sets the tone: "On the procedural level, the problem is that the negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time. Britain and the EU will have to unpick and then reorder a legal, economic and trading relationship that has been knitted together over the course of more than 40 years. But the two sides will have just two years to achieve and ratify a deal after Britain triggers Article 50 and gives formal notice that it intends to leave."
The whole article is worth reading but this section sets the tone:
"On the procedural level, the problem is that the negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time. Britain and the EU will have to unpick and then reorder a legal, economic and trading relationship that has been knitted together over the course of more than 40 years. But the two sides will have just two years to achieve and ratify a deal after Britain triggers Article 50 and gives formal notice that it intends to leave.
One of Britain’s most experienced Brussels hands thinks the task is unachievable. “We don’t have the administrative capacity to do it,” he says, “and the EU don’t have the focus.” Britain’s ambassador to the EU has privately come to a similar verdict; Sir Ivan Rogers warned ministers that it could take a decade for the UK to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU.
If there was great goodwill on both sides, the negotiations could doubtless be accelerated. But that is where the politics come into it. There is already plenty of simmering ill will on both sides of the Channel. The British are hoping that, when the talks actually begin, things will calm down. In reality, it is more likely that the opposite will happen. The negotiating process will reveal the immense gap between the operating assumptions of the two sides. As a result, mutual acrimony will quickly increase — and talks could break down irretrievably."
This is why Farage's metamorphosis has been so disappointing. At one time his approach was: integration isn't for us, but if the rest of the EU wants to do it then good luck to them. We just want an amicable divorce. Now he's bent on wrecking the EU, sowing the seeds of discontent and stirring up the forces of the far Right. Presumably it's the Trump thing that has induced this tomfoolery, but how the hell is it supposed to help Britain? What an absolute little rotter of a man. What an absolute traitor.
"Christmas strikes will turn public against you, Labour MP tells unions" Not so sure. Did the 3-Day Week at this time of the year turn public opinion against the miners?
@AlastairMeeks One of the reasons I initially considered voting leave was the reasoning that surely the Gov't has a fully worked plan to head through if that was the result having asked the question. That it did not was a big moment of realisation I saw thankfully before the vote.
Why was the fact that our supine, complacent Government had not even considered the possibility of a Leave vote a reason not to vote Leave? That's like not going to University because your parents didn't think there was any possibility of going and haven't done anything to help - it's a pain and will potentially make things less smooth, but ought not dictate a lasting decision about the future.
@AlastairMeeks One of the reasons I initially considered voting leave was the reasoning that surely the Gov't has a fully worked plan to head through if that was the result having asked the question. That it did not was a big moment of realisation I saw thankfully before the vote.
For something as complex and unpredictable as leaving the EU, its impossible to have a fully worked out plan - especially when so much is dependant on the other party. Best that can be done is to set out a rough objective, eg. EEA, EFTA, CETA, WTO and outline the downsides of each and people have to make a decision knowing that the future is very uncertain.
The whole article is worth reading but this section sets the tone:
"On the procedural level, the problem is that the negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time. Britain and the EU will have to unpick and then reorder a legal, economic and trading relationship that has been knitted together over the course of more than 40 years. But the two sides will have just two years to achieve and ratify a deal after Britain triggers Article 50 and gives formal notice that it intends to leave.
One of Britain’s most experienced Brussels hands thinks the task is unachievable. “We don’t have the administrative capacity to do it,” he says, “and the EU don’t have the focus.” Britain’s ambassador to the EU has privately come to a similar verdict; Sir Ivan Rogers warned ministers that it could take a decade for the UK to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU.
If there was great goodwill on both sides, the negotiations could doubtless be accelerated. But that is where the politics come into it. There is already plenty of simmering ill will on both sides of the Channel. The British are hoping that, when the talks actually begin, things will calm down. In reality, it is more likely that the opposite will happen. The negotiating process will reveal the immense gap between the operating assumptions of the two sides. As a result, mutual acrimony will quickly increase — and talks could break down irretrievably."
This bit
A senior British civil servant provided me with a more realistic assessment. “It’s going to be bloody,” he said, “but we’re just going to have to bash on through and get to the other side.” I smiled at that very British evocation of the wartime spirit. It is just a shame that this war is so pointless and self-defeating.
Relax. Apparently SeanT knows a big honcho from Team Leave who's said that everything's poised to be stunningly successful.
The whole article is worth reading but this section sets the tone:
"On the procedural level, the problem is that the negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time. Britain and the EU will have to unpick and then reorder a legal, economic and trading relationship that has been knitted together over the course of more than 40 years. But the two sides will have just two years to achieve and ratify a deal after Britain triggers Article 50 and gives formal notice that it intends to leave.
One of Britain’s most experienced Brussels hands thinks the task is unachievable. “We don’t have the administrative capacity to do it,” he says, “and the EU don’t have the focus.” Britain’s ambassador to the EU has privately come to a similar verdict; Sir Ivan Rogers warned ministers that it could take a decade for the UK to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU.
If there was great goodwill on both sides, the negotiations could doubtless be accelerated. But that is where the politics come into it. There is already plenty of simmering ill will on both sides of the Channel. The British are hoping that, when the talks actually begin, things will calm down. In reality, it is more likely that the opposite will happen. The negotiating process will reveal the immense gap between the operating assumptions of the two sides. As a result, mutual acrimony will quickly increase — and talks could break down irretrievably."
This is why Farage's metamorphosis has been so disappointing. At one time his approach was: integration isn't for us, but if the rest of the EU wants to do it then good luck to them. We just want an amicable divorce. Now he's bent on wrecking the EU, sowing the seeds of discontent and stirring up the forces of the far Right. Presumably it's the Trump thing that has induced this tomfoolery, but how the hell is it supposed to help Britain? What an absolute little rotter of a man. What an absolute traitor.
The Brexiteers only sense of validation will now be from the collapse of the EU since it will allow them to point out how right they were.
I see in today's Telegraph obituary column that Rabbi Lionel Blue has died. Sad news indeed. He was a good man and the world is a poorer place for him leaving it.
@Luckyguy1983 Because the Gov't is the government and I generally expect it to act within what it feels is Britain's interests. Every 5 (Or less) years the question is asked whether we expect the government to carry on or if the nation feels collectively it is time for someone else to command the confidence of the commons. The 'other' parties may not have a plan, or not a very good one but the machinery of the civil service is still running to allow a smooth transition. With hindsight, the question should either not have been asked at all, or some very serious preparatory work should have been done to allow some sort of transition to Britain outside the EU - this could and should have been done. The decision not to allow the civil service to do barely any work on the question of Scottish independence was also similiarly reckless, I take the view that we'd have been in a mess should that one not have gone the governments' way as we appear to be potentially with the EU now. & there was only one counterparty for that.
The bottom line is the government should be prepared
More fake news from the Guardian? Heaven forfend "Unfortunately, by Sheen’s own admission, none of this is true. The actor – whose agent must have had a fit – posted a blog on his personal Tumblr feed later the same day completely denying the story: “I did one interview with The Times of London a few weeks ago, parts of which (including a headline that is not a quote) have been picked up by a lot of other outlets. I DID NOT declare that I’m ‘quitting acting and leaving Hollywood’ to go into politics.” He continued: “I certainly did NOT equate people who voted for Brexit or Trump with a fascistic ‘hard right’ that must be stopped......"
The author of the fake news from Michael Sheen works for the BBC and Guardian......... Chris Johnston @cajuk "Business and news reporter/editor for BBC News and the Guardian"
The decision not to allow the civil service to do barely any work on the question of Scottish independence was also similiarly reckless
Tbf some civil servants did put in a fair bit of graft.
"We all had something in common, we're trying to save the Union here, and it came so close. We just kept it by the skin of our teeth. I actually cried when the result came in. After 10 years in the civil service, my proudest moment is tonight and receiving this award.”
The decision not to allow the civil service to do barely any work on the question of Scottish independence was also similiarly reckless
Tbf some civil servants did put in a fair bit of graft.
"We all had something in common, we're trying to save the Union here, and it came so close. We just kept it by the skin of our teeth. I actually cried when the result came in. After 10 years in the civil service, my proudest moment is tonight and receiving this award.”
The decision not to allow the civil service to do barely any work on the question of Scottish independence was also similiarly reckless
Tbf some civil servants did put in a fair bit of graft.
"We all had something in common, we're trying to save the Union here, and it came so close. We just kept it by the skin of our teeth. I actually cried when the result came in. After 10 years in the civil service, my proudest moment is tonight and receiving this award.”
"Pisani said: “In the Treasury, everyone hates you. We don't get thanks for anything." "
"We all had something in common, we're trying to save the Union here, and it came so close. " Whatever happened to having impartial civil servants? A policy sacrificed by Cameron and Osborne. It will only end in tears.
I never believe the words "no doubt". The EU has some competence - actually competition is the one area where the Commission has strong executive powers - to act.
I never believe the words "no doubt". The EU has some competence - actually competition is the one area where the Commission has strong executive powers - to act.
Yes, and it's been used as a proxy for a French inspired quasi-tax policy for a couple of years. Have a look at the case law.
I did find it interesting that during the referendum this wasn't mentioned by leave who instead majored on the theme of swarthy types are coming and they're s bit rapey.
I never believe the words "no doubt". The EU has some competence - actually competition is the one area where the Commission has strong executive powers - to act.
"No doubt" is one of those phrases which, like "clearly", "obviously" and "of course", should be circled in red ink and considered very carefully indeed. They're usually tells that the writer hasn't thought in any detail about what he or she has written and usually skate over hidden assumptions.
I never believe the words "no doubt". The EU has some competence - actually competition is the one area where the Commission has strong executive powers - to act.
"No doubt" is one of those phrases which, like "clearly", "obviously" and "of course", should be circled in red ink and considered very carefully indeed. They're usually tells that the writer hasn't thought in any detail about what he or she has written and usually skate over hidden assumptions.
Morning all: regarding trade deals, it is easiest for countries with non-overlapping areas of activity to enter into trade deals.
Lets not enter into them then. There is no shortcut to economic success.
It's not a shortcut - more opening gates and removing barbed wire from the path.
Economically an FTA is very simpke: an I better offer before or after
Politically it is more difficult to assess. Inevitably there is some sharing of sovereignty. The question is how well defined is that sharing, is it too expensive, and will it be self-expanding over time.
Economically FTAs are not simple because they take place in trade context. It's possible for them to be both good and bad at the same time, thanks to trade diversion and the like. The simple question is whether they advance the flow of trade between two parties. The more complex and more important question is whether they advance or hold back the general trading environment. EU FTAs do both at the same time. EFTA and Japanese FTAs (as models for what we might do post Brexit) don't do either so much.
Correction: the EFTA and Japanese FTAs are protectionist on agriculture, like the EU ones,but don't advance the trading environment so much as the EU ones on standards, services and non tariff barriers.
What I meant was it is easy to judge whether it is sensible or not; are we better off before or after. Sovereignty is a more nebulous test.
More fake news from the Guardian? Heaven forfend "Unfortunately, by Sheen’s own admission, none of this is true. The actor – whose agent must have had a fit – posted a blog on his personal Tumblr feed later the same day completely denying the story: “I did one interview with The Times of London a few weeks ago, parts of which (including a headline that is not a quote) have been picked up by a lot of other outlets. I DID NOT declare that I’m ‘quitting acting and leaving Hollywood’ to go into politics.” He continued: “I certainly did NOT equate people who voted for Brexit or Trump with a fascistic ‘hard right’ that must be stopped......"
The author of the fake news from Michael Sheen works for the BBC and Guardian......... Chris Johnston @cajuk "Business and news reporter/editor for BBC News and the Guardian"
Mr. Chuck, shade harder/more metal than I usually go for but good to see Hannibal getting an airing (reminds me a little of when there was a Carthaginian lives matter, or suchlike, protest during the US election. Lindy Beige's Hannibal graphic novel comes out next year, I think).
Mr. Chuck, shade harder/more metal than I usually go for but good to see Hannibal getting an airing (reminds me a little of when there was a Carthaginian lives matter, or suchlike, protest during the US election. Lindy Beige's Hannibal graphic novel comes out next year, I think).
Re male vs female disparity - thought this may be of interest.
I never believe the words "no doubt". The EU has some competence - actually competition is the one area where the Commission has strong executive powers - to act.
"No doubt" is one of those phrases which, like "clearly", "obviously" and "of course", should be circled in red ink and considered very carefully indeed. They're usually tells that the writer hasn't thought in any detail about what he or she has written and usually skate over hidden assumptions.
Despite having played games since cassettes, I've never had a Nintendo (borrowed a friend's N64 back in the day for a few weeks).
Mr. Eagles, the A-Team needed a legendary name for their leader. Queen of Bithynia didn't cut it.
New information, the clock speeds were revealed by Eurogamer today. Looking at 0.2tf for handheld mode and 0.4tf for docked mode. That's a ps3 handheld and about a fifth of a ps4 when docked. Just horrible all around. It doesn't even use the full potential of the chip I is based on, it would at least be around 0.7tf then which puts it into an almost Xbox 1 sort of range.
The loyalty oath reminds me of Blairs dragging them to cash points policy.lasted a Sunday afternoon.When they have nothing sensible to say, why don't they just shut the f up.,Was surprised Osborne on Marr thought it was a good idea.Thought he had more nous than that.Politicians are certainly a different breed with no common sense sometimes.
Quite what the mechanism is by which a graduate Sir Humphrey mumbling a few words in Whitehall encourages a Muslim woman in Luton to learn better English isn't fully explained.
Maybe - just maybe - some public officials might realize that making it easy for citizens not to speak English by providing information in a range of foreign languages is counterproductive because it removes one incentive to learn English and because it sends out a signal that it is OK to live in England while not bothering to learn English and that making it essential to speak English in England (the horror!) might be more sensible.
And, yes, yes, I know all the counterarguments.
But providing endless translations costs money. And if you cannot get on in a country without speaking the language then you're bloody well forced to learn, aren't you?
When my mother came over, her English was not good at all. There were no Italian translations of all and sundry. She learnt to speak better English because she had to. When in Rome etc.
I don't know all the counterarguments, but it is clear to me that immigrants should acquire the language to become a proper citizen. This should not be controversial. If I wanted to become a Finnish citizen I would have to pass a quite rigorous language test. By no means an easy task, yet hardly anyone cavils.
I presume you'd have no problem with English people being required to learn Welsh if they move to Caernarfon?
The loyalty oath reminds me of Blairs dragging them to cash points policy.lasted a Sunday afternoon.When they have nothing sensible to say, why don't they just shut the f up.,Was surprised Osborne on Marr thought it was a good idea.Thought he had more nous than that.Politicians are certainly a different breed with no common sense sometimes.
Quite what the mechanism is by which a graduate Sir Humphrey mumbling a few words in Whitehall encourages a Muslim woman in Luton to learn better English isn't fully explained.
Maybe - just maybe - some public officials might realize that making it easy for citizens not to speak English by providing information in a range of foreign languages is counterproductive because it removes one incentive to learn English and because it sends out a signal that it is OK to live in England while not bothering to learn English and that making it essential to speak English in England (the horror!) might be more sensible.
And, yes, yes, I know all the counterarguments.
But providing endless translations costs money. And if you cannot get on in a country without speaking the language then you're bloody well forced to learn, aren't you?
When my mother came over, her English was not good at all. There were no Italian translations of all and sundry. She learnt to speak better English because she had to. When in Rome etc.
I don't know all the counterarguments, but it is clear to me that immigrants should acquire the language to become a proper citizen. This should not be controversial. If I wanted to become a Finnish citizen I would have to pass a quite rigorous language test. By no means an easy task, yet hardly anyone cavils.
I presume you'd have no problem with English people being required to learn Welsh if they move to Caernarfon?
The loyalty oath reminds me of Blairs dragging them to cash points policy.lasted a Sunday afternoon.When they have nothing sensible to say, why don't they just shut the f up.,Was surprised Osborne on Marr thought it was a good idea.Thought he had more nous than that.Politicians are certainly a different breed with no common sense sometimes.
Quite what the mechanism is by which a graduate Sir Humphrey mumbling a few words in Whitehall encourages a Muslim woman in Luton to learn better English isn't fully explained.
Maybe - just maybe - some public officials might realize that making it easy for citizens not to speak English by providing information in a range of foreign languages is counterproductive because it removes one incentive to learn English and because it sends out a signal that it is OK to live in England while not bothering to learn English and that making it essential to speak English in England (the horror!) might be more sensible.
And, yes, yes, I know all the counterarguments.
But providing endless translations costs money. And if you cannot get on in a country without speaking the language then you're bloody well forced to learn, aren't you?
When my mother came over, her English was not good at all. There were no Italian translations of all and sundry. She learnt to speak better English because she had to. When in Rome etc.
I don't know all the counterarguments, but it is clear to me that immigrants should acquire the language to become a proper citizen. This should not be controversial. If I wanted to become a Finnish citizen I would have to pass a quite rigorous language test. By no means an easy task, yet hardly anyone cavils.
I presume you'd have no problem with English people being required to learn Welsh if they move to Caernarfon?
Do you take pride in being an obtuse idiot?
More ad-hominem stuff. Yawn.
Perhaps you could tell me where my logic is faulty? Is it because Wales isn't a proper nation? Would you like to tell the Welsh that? Or perhaps it's because the obligation to use the local language doesn't apply to the English?
I didn't log in much yesterday. Did we debate the comment by Adam Boulton that a senior Labour source told him Corbyn does not want to continue after his 70th birthday which is May 2019?
May will need to go early to be more certain to be facing Corbyn.
To be fair to those who thought he was going to quit acting- he certainly gave that impression by saying: "“ said I have become more involved with community issues back at home over the last few years, and because of the political situation, it’s something I would like to focus on more. The interviewer asked me what that meant for my career, and I said it might mean I work less as an actor and maybe even stop for a while AT SOME POINT."
The loyalty oath reminds me of Blairs dragging them to cash points policy.lasted a Sunday afternoon.When they have nothing sensible to say, why don't they just shut the f up.,Was surprised Osborne on Marr thought it was a good idea.Thought he had more nous than that.Politicians are certainly a different breed with no common sense sometimes.
Quite what the mechanism is by which a graduate Sir Humphrey mumbling a few words in Whitehall encourages a Muslim woman in Luton to learn better English isn't fully explained.
Maybe - just maybe - some public officials might realize that making it easy for citizens not to speak English by providing information in a range of foreign languages is counterproductive because it removes one incentive to learn English and because it sends out a signal that it is OK to live in England while not bothering to learn English and that making it essential to speak English in England (the horror!) might be more sensible.
And, yes, yes, I know all the counterarguments.
But providing endless translations costs money. And if you cannot get on in a country without speaking the language then you're bloody well forced to learn, aren't you?
When my mother came over, her English was not good at all. There were no Italian translations of all and sundry. She learnt to speak better English because she had to. When in Rome etc.
I don't know all the counterarguments, but it is clear to me that immigrants should acquire the language to become a proper citizen. This should not be controversial. If I wanted to become a Finnish citizen I would have to pass a quite rigorous language test. By no means an easy task, yet hardly anyone cavils.
I presume you'd have no problem with English people being required to learn Welsh if they move to Caernarfon?
Do you take pride in being an obtuse idiot?
More ad-hominem stuff. Yawn.
Perhaps you could tell me where my logic is faulty? Is it because Wales isn't a proper nation? Would you like to tell the Welsh that? Or perhaps it's because the obligation to use the local language doesn't apply to the English?
Welsh people all speak English as their first language. I lived there for four years and the only time Welsh as a subject ever came up was friends of mine bitching that they had study it at school despite it being a dead language.
Morning all: regarding trade deals, it is easiest for countries with non-overlapping areas of activity to enter into trade deals.
Lets not enter into them then. There is no shortcut to economic success.
It's not a shortcut - more opening gates and removing barbed wire from the path.
Economically an FTA is very simpke: an I better offer before or after
Politically it is more difficult to assess. Inevitably there is some sharing of sovereignty. The question is how well defined is that sharing, is it too expensive, and will it be self-expanding over time.
Economically FTAs are not simple because they take place in trade context. It's possible for them to be both good and bad at the same time, thanks to trade diversion and the like. The simple question is whether they advance the flow of trade between two parties. The more complex and more important question is whether they advance or hold back the general trading environment. EU FTAs do both at the same time. EFTA and Japanese FTAs (as models for what we might do post Brexit) don't do either so much.
Correction: the EFTA and Japanese FTAs are protectionist on agriculture, like the EU ones,but don't advance the trading environment so much as the EU ones on standards, services and non tariff barriers.
What I meant was it is easy to judge whether it is sensible or not; are we better off before or after. Sovereignty is a more nebulous test.
Are we better off can be just as nebulous a question. How do you measure it? If nothing else, Brexit tells you that GDP isn't the full story.
PA Stormont Assembly is plunged into crisis after all non-Democratic Unionist members walk out ahead of a disputed statement by Arlene Foster https://t.co/wj9BL8sWXs
Welsh people all speak English as their first language. I lived there for four years and the only time Welsh as a subject ever came up was friends of mine bitching that they had study it at school despite it being a dead language.
That's not true. When I worked at ONS I met someone who was first language Welsh. It was a bit odd because you wouldn't know if she didn't tell you that that was the case. But she said she sometimes had trouble remembering the English for some things.
AFP #BREAKING IMF chief Lagarde convicted by French court over tycoon payout
Enter George Osborne. Could be helpful for everyone as it removes a potential leadership rival for May and he gets to swan about at the IMF.
He's remaining exclusively in British politics
But he could go and come back for 2025 and have a run at the leadership after that election (assiming Labour get their act together). He'd be favourite for the position off the back of the IMF directorship. He'd also be better at it than Lagarde IMO as he's a more impartial observer to the EMU crisis than a French person would be. She got far too bogged down in all of that rubbish and appeasement of the ECB and EU on their stupid policies when she should have been much more forceful with the major EU nations to run fiscally expansionary policies.
[I only noticed the contrast of having a princess versus a patriarch long after I'd finished the book. I'm so politically correct I do it subconsciously ].
Dr. Spyn, that's weird.
Reminds me a bit of Wilders getting found guilty (for a pretty soft line, to be illegal, of asking an audience if they wanted more or fewer Moroccans) but getting no punishment.
Welsh people all speak English as their first language. I lived there for four years and the only time Welsh as a subject ever came up was friends of mine bitching that they had study it at school despite it being a dead language.
That's not true. When I worked at ONS I met someone who was first language Welsh. It was a bit odd because you wouldn't know if she didn't tell you that that was the case. But she said she sometimes had trouble remembering the English for some things.
That's really surprising, I didn't come across any in four years.
The loyalty oath reminds me of Blairs dragging them to cash points policy.lasted a Sunday afternoon.When they have nothing sensible to say, why don't they just shut the f up.,Was surprised Osborne on Marr thought it was a good idea.Thought he had more nous than that.Politicians are certainly a different breed with no common sense sometimes.
Quite what the mechanism is by which a graduate Sir Humphrey mumbling a few words in Whitehall encourages a Muslim woman in Luton to learn better English isn't fully explained.
Maybe - just maybe - some public officials might realize that making it easy for citizens not to speak English by providing information in a range of foreign languages is counterproductive because it removes one incentive to learn English and because it sends out a signal that it is OK to live in England while not bothering to learn English and that making it essential to speak English in England (the horror!) might be more sensible.
And, yes, yes, I know all the counterarguments.
But providing endless translations costs money. And if you cannot get on in a country without speaking the language then you're bloody well forced to learn, aren't you?
When my mother came over, her English was not good at all. There were no Italian translations of all and sundry. She learnt to speak better English because she had to. When in Rome etc.
I don't know all the counterarguments, but it is clear to me that immigrants should acquire the language to become a proper citizen. This should not be controversial. If I wanted to become a Finnish citizen I would have to pass a quite rigorous language test. By no means an easy task, yet hardly anyone cavils.
I presume you'd have no problem with English people being required to learn Welsh if they move to Caernarfon?
Do you take pride in being an obtuse idiot?
More ad-hominem stuff. Yawn.
Perhaps you could tell me where my logic is faulty? Is it because Wales isn't a proper nation? Would you like to tell the Welsh that? Or perhaps it's because the obligation to use the local language doesn't apply to the English?
Welsh people all speak English as their first language. I lived there for four years and the only time Welsh as a subject ever came up was friends of mine bitching that they had study it at school despite it being a dead language.
I suggest you visit Bala, go in one of the pubs and opine thus. Let me know when you're going and I'll try and catch you as you fly through the window.
The loyalty oath reminds me of Blairs dragging them to cash points policy.lasted a Sunday afternoon.When they have nothing sensible to say, why don't they just shut the f up.,Was surprised Osborne on Marr thought it was a good idea.Thought he had more nous than that.Politicians are certainly a different breed with no common sense sometimes.
Quite what the mechanism is by which a graduate Sir Humphrey mumbling a few words in Whitehall encourages a Muslim woman in Luton to learn better English isn't fully explained.
When my mother came over, her English was not good at all. There were no Italian translations of all and sundry. She learnt to speak better English because she had to. When in Rome etc.
I don't know all the counterarguments, but it is clear to me that immigrants should acquire the language to become a proper citizen. This should not be controversial. If I wanted to become a Finnish citizen I would have to pass a quite rigorous language test. By no means an easy task, yet hardly anyone cavils.
I presume you'd have no problem with English people being required to learn Welsh if they move to Caernarfon?
Do you take pride in being an obtuse idiot?
More ad-hominem stuff. Yawn.
Perhaps you could tell me where my logic is faulty? Is it because Wales isn't a proper nation? Would you like to tell the Welsh that? Or perhaps it's because the obligation to use the local language doesn't apply to the English?
Welsh people all speak English as their first language. I lived there for four years and the only time Welsh as a subject ever came up was friends of mine bitching that they had study it at school despite it being a dead language.
I said Caernarfon, not the whole of Wales. From Wikipedia:
"Within Wales, Gwynedd has the highest proportion of speakers of the Welsh language. The greatest concentration of Welsh speakers in Gwynedd is found in and around Caernarfon.[33] According to the 2001 Census, 86.1% of the population could speak Welsh; the largest majority of Welsh speakers was found in the 10-14 age group, where 97.7% could speak it fluently."
My point stands. If the rule is 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do", then "Pan yng Nghymru yn ei wneud fel y Gymraeg yn ei wneud"
I can't see the French accepting a Briton as head of the IMF especially post Brexit. But does Lagarde have to resign over this ? I thought it was a negligence charge in an administrative court ?
Welsh people all speak English as their first language. I lived there for four years and the only time Welsh as a subject ever came up was friends of mine bitching that they had study it at school despite it being a dead language.
That's not true. When I worked at ONS I met someone who was first language Welsh. It was a bit odd because you wouldn't know if she didn't tell you that that was the case. But she said she sometimes had trouble remembering the English for some things.
Meeting a single person gives @MaxPB point more weight - as not the exception.
Learning languages specific to very isolated portions of countries would seem a little high as an obligation, when fellow members of that country don't even bother. Do all Spaniards learn Catalan? Do all Irish learn Irish fluently even though it is an official language?
If you already speak a language which is an official language of a nation, it's a bit much to expect people to learn every language or dialect that might be spoken elsewhere, for all if someone moves to another country they should at the least learn the official language.
I can't see the French accepting a Briton as head of the IMF especially post Brexit. But does Lagarde have to resign over this ? I thought it was a negligence charge in an administrative court ?
Well, there are many things people don't have to resign over, and may even intend not to, but practical realities force them to.
Comments
Correction: the EFTA and Japanese FTAs are protectionist on agriculture, like the EU ones,but don't advance the trading environment so much as the EU ones on standards, services and non tariff barriers.
That's an interesting article, Cyclefree, but much remains unsaid.
I'm persuaded by Joseph Stiglitz's view that countries can choose any two out of economic integration, national sovereignty, and democracy, but not all three. Increasingly, Western countries seem to be opting for two and three, which seems a reasonable trade off to me.
I'm also in two minds, I think India are more likely than 3.3 to win because the whole England team must be mentally drained after the last two days in the field being hit around the park at a strike rate of nearly 80.
Lots of confounding variables to do with class and occupation though.
It is astonishing that we have a POTUS elect who doesn't have faith in the CIA!
It might be a load of meretricious, deceitful, defamatory crap in and of itself, but it's actually attempting to tell a bigger truth about the Islamist enemy within that threatens our very way of life.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38363441
Winners of the Father Jack award for creative drinking.
Gideon Rachman in the FT worries (like me) about a train crash Brexit:
https://www.ft.com/content/9ec6ccec-c5ce-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product
The whole article is worth reading but this section sets the tone:
"On the procedural level, the problem is that the negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time. Britain and the EU will have to unpick and then reorder a legal, economic and trading relationship that has been knitted together over the course of more than 40 years. But the two sides will have just two years to achieve and ratify a deal after Britain triggers Article 50 and gives formal notice that it intends to leave.
One of Britain’s most experienced Brussels hands thinks the task is unachievable. “We don’t have the administrative capacity to do it,” he says, “and the EU don’t have the focus.” Britain’s ambassador to the EU has privately come to a similar verdict; Sir Ivan Rogers warned ministers that it could take a decade for the UK to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU.
If there was great goodwill on both sides, the negotiations could doubtless be accelerated. But that is where the politics come into it. There is already plenty of simmering ill will on both sides of the Channel. The British are hoping that, when the talks actually begin, things will calm down. In reality, it is more likely that the opposite will happen. The negotiating process will reveal the immense gap between the operating assumptions of the two sides. As a result, mutual acrimony will quickly increase — and talks could break down irretrievably."
Nevertheless Art 50. should be triggered, David Cameron asked the question and the nation answered.
Neilvw said
' Electoral Calculus have the new Batley and Morley as having a notional 2015 Labour majority of almost 5,000 (9.5 percentage points).
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/calcwork.py?seat=Batley and Morley'
'Adjusting for the current national polling average makes it much closer - Labour are predicted to win the new seat by one percentage point or about 500 votes. It would be Labour's 170th-safest seat according to their calculations.'
But that is not what the current polls are saying. The three most recent polls show an average Tory lead of 10.5% - 11% which would represent a 2% swing from Lab to Con since May 2015. On that basis, Labour would hold Batley & Morley by 5.5% - ie nearly 3000 votes. Interesting that the weekend Opinium poll showed that the Tory lead in England is 8% - compared with 9.5% last year. That would actually be a swing from Con to Lab there of 0.75% and imply a Labour hold in this new seat by 11%.
A senior British civil servant provided me with a more realistic assessment. “It’s going to be bloody,” he said, “but we’re just going to have to bash on through and get to the other side.” I smiled at that very British evocation of the wartime spirit. It is just a shame that this war is so pointless and self-defeating.
Not so sure. Did the 3-Day Week at this time of the year turn public opinion against the miners?
I see in today's Telegraph obituary column that Rabbi Lionel Blue has died. Sad news indeed. He was a good man and the world is a poorer place for him leaving it.
With hindsight, the question should either not have been asked at all, or some very serious preparatory work should have been done to allow some sort of transition to Britain outside the EU - this could and should have been done.
The decision not to allow the civil service to do barely any work on the question of Scottish independence was also similiarly reckless, I take the view that we'd have been in a mess should that one not have gone the governments' way as we appear to be potentially with the EU now. & there was only one counterparty for that.
The bottom line is the government should be prepared
"Business and news reporter/editor for BBC News and the Guardian"
"We all had something in common, we're trying to save the Union here, and it came so close. We just kept it by the skin of our teeth. I actually cried when the result came in. After 10 years in the civil service, my proudest moment is tonight and receiving this award.”
http://tinyurl.com/h7q7dej
"Pisani said: “In the Treasury, everyone hates you. We don't get thanks for anything." "
Going to be lot more of those for people from France, Spain etc etc when we leave.
Nevertheless we voted for it.
http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/kataklysm-frontmans-ex-deo-project-listen-to-new-song-the-rise-of-hannibal/
Whatever happened to having impartial civil servants? A policy sacrificed by Cameron and Osborne. It will only end in tears.
http://order-order.com/2016/12/19/ireland-asserts-tax-sovereignty-in-europen-commission-legal-battle/
"There is no doubt that the Commission is trying to use State Aid laws to thwart Ireland’s competitive tax regime over which the EU has no competence. Ironically if Ireland loses it gets a windfall of €13 billion in taxes …"
The government of the day does not prepare for the implementation of opposition policies "in case it loses an election"
I never believe the words "no doubt". The EU has some competence - actually competition is the one area where the Commission has strong executive powers - to act.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-y0TlV4bzw
In the month before the election, the civil service does in fact prepare for an opposition victory. The idea is to ensure a seamless transition.
I did find it interesting that during the referendum this wasn't mentioned by leave who instead majored on the theme of swarthy types are coming and they're s bit rapey.
Mr. Chuck, shade harder/more metal than I usually go for but good to see Hannibal getting an airing (reminds me a little of when there was a Carthaginian lives matter, or suchlike, protest during the US election. Lindy Beige's Hannibal graphic novel comes out next year, I think).
Doesn't Mike pay quite a lot of money for Vanilla? Seems poor service to mae him wait until after Xmas to get it fixed....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MVonyVSQoM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WALEvNCMsI
Despite having played games since cassettes, I've never had a Nintendo (borrowed a friend's N64 back in the day for a few weeks).
Mr. Eagles, the A-Team needed a legendary name for their leader. Queen of Bithynia didn't cut it.
All about PCs these days my friend.
https://twitter.com/MarcOxford/status/810787804045250560
Although not a Nintendo chap, I hope they don't bite the dust. Could do with more rather than less competition in the console wars.
[Still wish proper mods were coming to the PS4 version of Skyrim].
Perhaps you could tell me where my logic is faulty? Is it because Wales isn't a proper nation? Would you like to tell the Welsh that? Or perhaps it's because the obligation to use the local language doesn't apply to the English?
May will need to go early to be more certain to be facing Corbyn.
Not sure May will go earlier, but we'll see.
Most Welsh people speak English as a first language.
#BREAKING IMF chief Lagarde convicted by French court over tycoon payout
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/dec/18/michael-sheen-denies-rumours-he-is-swapping-acting-for-activism
To be fair to those who thought he was going to quit acting- he certainly gave that impression by saying: "“ said I have become more involved with community issues back at home over the last few years, and because of the political situation, it’s something I would like to focus on more. The interviewer asked me what that meant for my career, and I said it might mean I work less as an actor and maybe even stop for a while AT SOME POINT."
If he intends to depart he has nothing to lose from seeking to fustrate her wishes.
They need a non-dodgy Frenchman.
Edited extra bit: is the IMF boss always French? Maybe they need someone from a straighter nation. Italy?
Just as well it wasn't stock images of fast food eating habits.
< Donald Trump will violate the US constitution on inauguration day
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/donald-trump-violate-us-constitution-inauguration-day?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
PA
Stormont Assembly is plunged into crisis after all non-Democratic Unionist members walk out ahead of a disputed statement by Arlene Foster https://t.co/wj9BL8sWXs
[I only noticed the contrast of having a princess versus a patriarch long after I'd finished the book. I'm so politically correct I do it subconsciously
Dr. Spyn, that's weird.
Reminds me a bit of Wilders getting found guilty (for a pretty soft line, to be illegal, of asking an audience if they wanted more or fewer Moroccans) but getting no punishment.
"Within Wales, Gwynedd has the highest proportion of speakers of the Welsh language. The greatest concentration of Welsh speakers in Gwynedd is found in and around Caernarfon.[33] According to the 2001 Census, 86.1% of the population could speak Welsh; the largest majority of Welsh speakers was found in the 10-14 age group, where 97.7% could speak it fluently."
My point stands. If the rule is 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do", then "Pan yng Nghymru yn ei wneud fel y Gymraeg yn ei wneud"
If you already speak a language which is an official language of a nation, it's a bit much to expect people to learn every language or dialect that might be spoken elsewhere, for all if someone moves to another country they should at the least learn the official language.
Well, there are many things people don't have to resign over, and may even intend not to, but practical realities force them to.