I think Donald Trump has done exactly the right thing. There have two or three terrorist attacks in the USA every year, and he has tied the inevitable attacks to come to his opposition. Who appear to value the rights of everybody in the world above american lives.
Nonsense - there has been significantly less than one Islamic terrorist attack per year in the US since 9/11, which suggests the current system is working fine. Toddlers with guns are a far bigger threat to Americans.
As others have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is not on the list despite being by far the nation with the most civilian American blood on its hands.
Moreover the majority of the major attacks have been carried out by people who were either born in the US or moved at a very young age.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Little Rock Attack - A convert born in Memphis Tennessee Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood Attack - Born in Virginia Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez - Chattanooga Attack - moved to the US at the age of 6 Syed Rizwan Farook - San Bernadino Attack - Born in Chicago (though his wife who took part in the attacks with him was from Pakistan) Omar Mateen - Orlando Attack - Born in New York Zale Thompson - New York Attack November 2014 - Born in New York Ismaaiyl Brinsley - New York Attack December 2014 - Born in New York
In fact putting together all the major islamic attacks in the US since 2009, the majority of the attackers were born in the US.
So how is this policy going to make a blind bit of difference?
That list is hardly a great advert for Islamic immigration though is it?
Yes, I'll repeat what I posted last night. Those who think May should have temporised about visiting our #1 military partner, #1 intelligence partner, #1 bilateral investment partner and #1 export market are fuckwits halfwits.
"Partner" indeed. That's not a partnership. And Britain exports FAR MORE to the rest of the EU than it does to the US.
Britain's no.1 (excuse my British usage instead of "#") export market is EU27.
I prefer not to treat the EU27 as some monolithic blob - you, of course, are at liberty to do as you please. Our major trading partners are the USA, China, Germany, France, Norway and the Netherlands. We can toss Belgium, Italy and Spain in for good measure. We run a trade surplus with the USA & a tiny surplus with the RoI. The rest are all deficits.
Whether you like it or not, the EU is a single market.
Not for me it isn't. I sell translation rights for my books to each European nation and/or language individually. And very lucrative they are, I am happy to say. Danke Deutschland.
Yep - the deals are all subject to European law. Before the single market, for example, the period of copyright authors enjoyed was different in different in European countries. Now it has been harmonised (to the German standard - life plus 70 years).
But that's just not true in any sensible interpretation of "single market". They operate as 28 (or so) very different markets, FOR ME
A book that will sell well in Germany won't do so good in Spain. France is always notoriously hard to predict - like Japan. Italy is known for hating books set in Italy, written by foreigners. The Dutch buy books in English, making translation rights much smaller than you'd expect. And so on,
Indeed I took all this on board when writing THE FIRE CHILD. Ice Twins did really well in Germany and doing really well in Germany (the world's 2nd most lucrative book market) means big bucks. So I set THE FIRE CHILD in Cornwall because Germans love books set in Cornwall.
Right now The Fire Child ("Stiefkind"), is in the German top 20, where it has been for eight weeks in a row, peaking at number 7.
So for me The Single Market is anything but.
Good. Stay with your interpretation. Meanwhile, the rest of us will carry on........
LOL. So someone who is actually directly involved in selling across the EU points out the fallacy of your argument and all you can say is you will 'carry on'?
@SophyRidgeSky: The Polish Deputy Prime Minister tells me financial services jobs are already starting to move from the UK to Poland due to Brexit #ridge
He's wrong. They were going anyway. Brexit is just a convenient excuse
I had never heard before that "financial services" were going anyway. You bankers kept it quiet.
I think Donald Trump has done exactly the right thing. There have two or three terrorist attacks in the USA every year, and he has tied the inevitable attacks to come to his opposition. Who appear to value the rights of everybody in the world above american lives.
Nonsense - there has been significantly less than one Islamic terrorist attack per year in the US since 9/11, which suggests the current system is working fine. Toddlers with guns are a far bigger threat to Americans.
As others have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is not on the list despite being by far the nation with the most civilian American blood on its hands.
Moreover the majority of the major attacks have been carried out by people who were either born in the US or moved at a very young age.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Little Rock Attack - A convert born in Memphis Tennessee Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood Attack - Born in Virginia Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez - Chattanooga Attack - moved to the US at the age of 6 Syed Rizwan Farook - San Bernadino Attack - Born in Chicago (though his wife who took part in the attacks with him was from Pakistan) Omar Mateen - Orlando Attack - Born in New York Zale Thompson - New York Attack November 2014 - Born in New York Ismaaiyl Brinsley - New York Attack December 2014 - Born in New York
In fact putting together all the major islamic attacks in the US since 2009, the majority of the attackers were born in the US.
So how is this policy going to make a blind bit of difference?
You missed out the Georgian brothers ?
They moved to the US quite late when they were in their teens. I thought the list was extensive enough to make the point.
I think Donald Trump has done exactly the right thing. There have two or three terrorist attacks in the USA every year, and he has tied the inevitable attacks to come to his opposition. Who appear to value the rights of everybody in the world above american lives.
Nonsense - there has been significantly less than one Islamic terrorist attack per year in the US since 9/11, which suggests the current system is working fine. Toddlers with guns are a far bigger threat to Americans.
As others have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is not on the list despite being by far the nation with the most civilian American blood on its hands.
Moreover the majority of the major attacks have been carried out by people who were either born in the US or moved at a very young age.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Little Rock Attack - A convert born in Memphis Tennessee Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood Attack - Born in Virginia Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez - Chattanooga Attack - moved to the US at the age of 6 Syed Rizwan Farook - San Bernadino Attack - Born in Chicago (though his wife who took part in the attacks with him was from Pakistan) Omar Mateen - Orlando Attack - Born in New York Zale Thompson - New York Attack November 2014 - Born in New York Ismaaiyl Brinsley - New York Attack December 2014 - Born in New York
In fact putting together all the major islamic attacks in the US since 2009, the majority of the attackers were born in the US.
So how is this policy going to make a blind bit of difference?
That list is hardly a great advert for Islamic immigration though is it?
Are you advocating banning religion entirely? For all that I am a staunch atheist I am really not sure that would go down too well in the Bible Belt.
I think Donald Trump has done exactly the right thing. There have two or three terrorist attacks in the USA every year, and he has tied the inevitable attacks to come to his opposition. Who appear to value the rights of everybody in the world above american lives.
Nonsense - there has been significantly less than one Islamic terrorist attack per year in the US since 9/11, which suggests the current system is working fine. Toddlers with guns are a far bigger threat to Americans.
As others have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is not on the list despite being by far the nation with the most civilian American blood on its hands.
Moreover the majority of the major attacks have been carried out by people who were either born in the US or moved at a very young age.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Little Rock Attack - A convert born in Memphis Tennessee Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood Attack - Born in Virginia Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez - Chattanooga Attack - moved to the US at the age of 6 Syed Rizwan Farook - San Bernadino Attack - Born in Chicago (though his wife who took part in the attacks with him was from Pakistan) Omar Mateen - Orlando Attack - Born in New York Zale Thompson - New York Attack November 2014 - Born in New York Ismaaiyl Brinsley - New York Attack December 2014 - Born in New York
In fact putting together all the major islamic attacks in the US since 2009, the majority of the attackers were born in the US.
So how is this policy going to make a blind bit of difference?
You missed out the Georgian brothers ?
They moved to the US quite late when they were in their teens. I thought the list was extensive enough to make the point.
Were they Georgians? Aren't Georgians predominantly Christian?
I think Donald Trump has done exactly the right thing. There have two or three terrorist attacks in the USA every year, and he has tied the inevitable attacks to come to his opposition. Who appear to value the rights of everybody in the world above american lives.
Nonsense - there has been significantly less than one Islamic terrorist attack per year in the US since 9/11, which suggests the current system is working fine. Toddlers with guns are a far bigger threat to Americans.
As others have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is not on the list despite being by far the nation with the most civilian American blood on its hands.
Moreover the majority of the major attacks have been carried out by people who were either born in the US or moved at a very young age.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Little Rock Attack - A convert born in Memphis Tennessee Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood Attack - Born in Virginia Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez - Chattanooga Attack - moved to the US at the age of 6 Syed Rizwan Farook - San Bernadino Attack - Born in Chicago (though his wife who took part in the attacks with him was from Pakistan) Omar Mateen - Orlando Attack - Born in New York Zale Thompson - New York Attack November 2014 - Born in New York Ismaaiyl Brinsley - New York Attack December 2014 - Born in New York
In fact putting together all the major islamic attacks in the US since 2009, the majority of the attackers were born in the US.
So how is this policy going to make a blind bit of difference?
That list is hardly a great advert for Islamic immigration though is it?
There is also a list of US mass-murderers with Christian backgrounds.
I think Donald Trump has done exactly the right thing. There have two or three terrorist attacks in the USA every year, and he has tied the inevitable attacks to come to his opposition. Who appear to value the rights of everybody in the world above american lives.
Nonsense - there has been significantly less than one Islamic terrorist attack per year in the US since 9/11, which suggests the current system is working fine. Toddlers with guns are a far bigger threat to Americans.
As others have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is not on the list despite being by far the nation with the most civilian American blood on its hands.
Moreover the majority of the major attacks have been carried out by people who were either born in the US or moved at a very young age.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Little Rock Attack - A convert born in Memphis Tennessee Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood Attack - Born in Virginia Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez - Chattanooga Attack - moved to the US at the age of 6 Syed Rizwan Farook - San Bernadino Attack - Born in Chicago (though his wife who took part in the attacks with him was from Pakistan) Omar Mateen - Orlando Attack - Born in New York Zale Thompson - New York Attack November 2014 - Born in New York Ismaaiyl Brinsley - New York Attack December 2014 - Born in New York
In fact putting together all the major islamic attacks in the US since 2009, the majority of the attackers were born in the US.
So how is this policy going to make a blind bit of difference?
You missed out the Georgian brothers ?
They moved to the US quite late when they were in their teens. I thought the list was extensive enough to make the point.
What I had in mind was that they were also not from the 7 notorious countries. So far, I am not aware of any acts of terrorism from citizens of these 7 countries.
Why did he not ban Saudis ? Answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This ban had nothing to do with terrorism. It is simply to let the WWC know that he was keeping his promise. Gradually it will go away, just like the wall will not be built apart from near big cities. Congress will not authorise $15bn.
I think Donald Trump has done exactly the right thing. There have two or three terrorist attacks in the USA every year, and he has tied the inevitable attacks to come to his opposition. Who appear to value the rights of everybody in the world above american lives.
Nonsense - there has been significantly less than one Islamic terrorist attack per year in the US since 9/11, which suggests the current system is working fine. Toddlers with guns are a far bigger threat to Americans.
As others have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is not on the list despite being by far the nation with the most civilian American blood on its hands.
Moreover the majority of the major attacks have been carried out by people who were either born in the US or moved at a very young age.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Little Rock Attack - A convert born in Memphis Tennessee Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood Attack - Born in Virginia Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez - Chattanooga Attack - moved to the US at the age of 6 Syed Rizwan Farook - San Bernadino Attack - Born in Chicago (though his wife who took part in the attacks with him was from Pakistan) Omar Mateen - Orlando Attack - Born in New York Zale Thompson - New York Attack November 2014 - Born in New York Ismaaiyl Brinsley - New York Attack December 2014 - Born in New York
In fact putting together all the major islamic attacks in the US since 2009, the majority of the attackers were born in the US.
So how is this policy going to make a blind bit of difference?
That list is hardly a great advert for Islamic immigration though is it?
Are you advocating banning religion entirely? For all that I am a staunch atheist I am really not sure that would go down too well in the Bible Belt.
I think Donald Trump has done exactly the right thing. There have two or three terrorist attacks in the USA every year, and he has tied the inevitable attacks to come to his opposition. Who appear to value the rights of everybody in the world above american lives.
Nonsense - there has been significantly less than one Islamic terrorist attack per year in the US since 9/11, which suggests the current system is working fine. Toddlers with guns are a far bigger threat to Americans.
As others have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is not on the list despite being by far the nation with the most civilian American blood on its hands.
Moreover the majority of the major attacks have been carried out by people who were either born in the US or moved at a very young age.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Little Rock Attack - A convert born in Memphis Tennessee Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood Attack - Born in Virginia Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez - Chattanooga Attack - moved to the US at the age of 6 Syed Rizwan Farook - San Bernadino Attack - Born in Chicago (though his wife who took part in the attacks with him was from Pakistan) Omar Mateen - Orlando Attack - Born in New York Zale Thompson - New York Attack November 2014 - Born in New York Ismaaiyl Brinsley - New York Attack December 2014 - Born in New York
In fact putting together all the major islamic attacks in the US since 2009, the majority of the attackers were born in the US.
So how is this policy going to make a blind bit of difference?
You missed out the Georgian brothers ?
They moved to the US quite late when they were in their teens. I thought the list was extensive enough to make the point.
Were they Georgians? Aren't Georgians predominantly Christian?
Sorry I see your point. But no they were not from Georgia. They were from Kyrgyzstan.
On topic, I'm with Mr Eagles on this one: in fact I would be amazed if there were another national (as opposed to local) referendum in the U.K. in my lifetime.
There will be no more UK wide referendums - the one good consequence of the Brexit vote. We are a representative democracy, and the EU referendum should never been allowed to happen.
Politician's hav erealised they should stick to the rigged Westminster elections, where a handful of seats decide what happens rather than trust in a democratic vote where you actually get what people really want.
I think Donald Trump has done exactly the right thing. There have two or three terrorist attacks in the USA every year, and he has tied the inevitable attacks to come to his opposition. Who appear to value the rights of everybody in the world above american lives.
Nonsense - there has been significantly less than one Islamic terrorist attack per year in the US since 9/11, which suggests the current system is working fine. Toddlers with guns are a far bigger threat to Americans.
As others have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is not on the list despite being by far the nation with the most civilian American blood on its hands.
Moreover the majority of the major attacks have been carried out by people who were either born in the US or moved at a very young age.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Little Rock Attack - A convert born in Memphis Tennessee Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood Attack - Born in Virginia Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez - Chattanooga Attack - moved to the US at the age of 6 Syed Rizwan Farook - San Bernadino Attack - Born in Chicago (though his wife who took part in the attacks with him was from Pakistan) Omar Mateen - Orlando Attack - Born in New York Zale Thompson - New York Attack November 2014 - Born in New York Ismaaiyl Brinsley - New York Attack December 2014 - Born in New York
In fact putting together all the major islamic attacks in the US since 2009, the majority of the attackers were born in the US.
So how is this policy going to make a blind bit of difference?
That list is hardly a great advert for Islamic immigration though is it?
There is also a list of US mass-murderers with Christian backgrounds.
Perhaps there is a correlation between how well the country is doing and the amount of spare time available to Liberal Lefties to engage in displacement activity.
You, of course, would prefer to be associated with other virtues. Hence your post.
Nonsense - I can't stand Trump, and I can't stand virtue signallers. Last night's fuss over why hasn't the PM condemned Trump for his EO, was a load of piss and wind.
Trump so far hasn't tortured any Muslims, unlike Ergodan who has cracked heads, and sat back as lynching were carried out in Istanbul.
@SophyRidgeSky: The Polish Deputy Prime Minister tells me financial services jobs are already starting to move from the UK to Poland due to Brexit #ridge
The Polish government is currently out on maneouvres, the DPM's statement is part of that. At the moment it's principally back end, and the jobs are moving from France and Germany as well as the UK - see for example BNP Paribas and Credit Suisse. Having been to Warsaw recently, I'm not surprised. A much more modern city than I was expecting.
@SophyRidgeSky: The Polish Deputy Prime Minister tells me financial services jobs are already starting to move from the UK to Poland due to Brexit #ridge
The Polish government is currently out on maneouvres, the DPM's statement is part of that. At the moment it's principally back end, and the jobs are moving from France and Germany as well as the UK - see for example BNP Paribas and Credit Suisse. Having been to Warsaw recently, I'm not surprised. A much more modern city than I was expecting.
Everyones favourite, Janan Ganesh, very sensible comments re May on Sunday Politics
What did he say?
Just that she had been in the air for a very long time over the last few days, last night she wouldn't have had full access to the details of the story, so she was right not to make off the cuff remarks to satisfy the 24hr news junkies
Woke up to find Theresa May hasn't resigned, Donald Trump is still President, and Jeremy Corbyn has almost split Labour in two over Article 50. What else did I miss?
Directors of the Outrage Bus Co. are making a fortune...
The point is children have no religion - ascribing religious views to young children is as absurd as ascribing political views to them. "Marxist six-year-olds are welcome at our school."
The point is children have no religion - ascribing religious views to young children is as absurd as ascribing political views to them. "Marxist six-year-olds are welcome at our school."
Just pointing out that he has been saying for years what you are saying today, wondered if you had seen it. No need to be tetchy just because I tease you sometimes x
You have been weirdly obsessed with me since you arrived on PB - once wishing me dead and, on another occasion, threatening me with violence via your thug "mates in Canning Town" for daring to declare myself a Londoner. Save your sinister kisses for someone who wants them and leave me in peace.
If we'd indulge my hobby for a second, I have had an opportunity to take a proper look at the effect of revisions on the public finances and the ability of the government to meet the OBR's forecast for the financial year.
Total revisions to the current financial year (that is, the initial estimate for each month compared to the current estimate of the year to date were £5.3 billion, effectively reducing the deficit by 10% - though of course it represents a much smaller percentage of total income or expenditure. As we are nine months into the financial year, there have been eight sets of revisions, a total of 6 revisions downward and 2 revisions upward.
Borrowing has been revised up at local government level by a total of £2.2bn, although revisions in the last two months have been downward. Central government receipts are up by £2.5bn and central government borrowing by £3.3bn; more controversially investment has been revised down by £1.8bn. What I would take from this is that revisions to central spending have largely been in the government's favour.
Total borrowing in the previous whole financial year was £75.4bn. Absent any revisions, that total for this year to date would have been £69.1bn; but that has cumulatively been revised to £63.8bn, i.e. the total reduction has been almost twice what the initial figures each month if taken in stone would have suggested.
Panelbase poll found enthusiasm for a pre-Brexit “indyref2” has fallen away — from 43% last June to 32% in September and only 27% now, and a majority (51%) do not want another independence vote held within the next few years.
Nicola should have done it on 24th June. Looks like she's missed the boat...
Supplies are just being taken aboard GIN, boat will sail to schedule not hyperbole or hysterics.
Yes, I'll repeat what I posted last night. Those who think May should have temporised about visiting our #1 military partner, #1 intelligence partner, #1 bilateral investment partner and #1 export market are fuckwits halfwits.
"Partner" indeed. That's not a partnership. And Britain exports FAR MORE to the rest of the EU than it does to the US.
Britain's no.1 (excuse my British usage instead of "#") export market is EU27.
I prefer The rest are all deficits.
Whether you like it or not, the EU is a single market.
Not for me it isn't. I sell translation rights for my books to each European nation and/or language individually. And very lucrative they are, I am happy to say. Danke Deutschland.
Though that's market.
Yep - the deals are all subject to European law. Before the single market, for example, the period of copyright authors enjoyed was different in different in European countries. Now it has been harmonised (to the German standard - life plus 70 years).
But that's just not true in any sensible interpretation of "single market". They operate as 28 (or so) very different markets, FOR ME
So for me The Single Market is anything but.
The case.
It's not just the fact that, for authors, the EU is definitely 28 different markets (in terms of places you market to, which require different marketING) but also the law is actually different, in crucial ways, in different countries. For instance some EU countries still have a net book agreement, guaranteeing high prices for books (no discounting allowed). Great for authors, tough for consumers. France and Germany still have these agreements. The UK does not.
So even the laws are crucially and significantly different across the EU.
Yes, but they are all subsidiary to EU law. There are different laws in different US states, too. Anyway, I accept that from the perspective of an author and for many others Europe can and should be treated as a collection of different markets. Many do the same with the US, of course. We definitely see California and New York very differently to Texas and Florida, for example.
This whole travel ban imposed by Trump is rather depressing isn' it?
I am not a lefty and have always admired and supported the USA and deep down the reason I have done all my life is not that it is ultra capitalist but that free market ethos so ingrained means that it actually makes it easier for immigration , easier to believe you can go as an immigrant and make it as an individual , free of government interference and petty rules.
Yes, it's very depressing, which makes it all more important that those 'on the right' which don't agree with Trump make that clear.
The man was coming across as stupid, but he's turning dangerous.
100% agree. If I had been voting in the States I would have held my nose and voted Clinton. She wouldn't have made anything better and would probably have made things moderately worse for many people. But that would still have been better than Trump.
Yep - as I said last night, this is absolutely not a left or right thing. You do not have to be a hand-wringing lefty to believe that it is wrong to prevent people who have made their lives in the US, paid US taxes and committed no crimes in the US from re-entering the country, or to discriminate against the citizens of any country because of where they happened to be born.
While I accept the rationale I'd have struggled voting for Clinton. Anyway the issue is moot. Trump won on the backs of a vast number of rust-belt white [ and other lower class] voters who have found a voice. I guess many will be happy with his clumsy order because they feel, rightly or wrongly that the threat is there. All of the outrage in the world now does nothing to excuse the failure of the establishment in American, and maybe European politics too, to show as much interest in the white/lower W/C voters for far too long as it has done for others. The plain fact is that this group of voters has been shamelessly let down for too long and will continue to elect people like Trump until their concerns are addressed.
Mr. Pong, jein. Information sharing with Germany's secret service (BND?) has declined due to the Germans being leakier than a sieve. It doesn't enhance our security to have secrets fall into nefarious hands because the Germans have been infiltrated.
You, of course, would prefer to be associated with other virtues. Hence your post.
Nonsense - I can't stand Trump, and I can't stand virtue signallers. Last night's fuss over why hasn't the PM condemned Trump for his EO, was a load of piss and wind.
Trump so far hasn't tortured any Muslims, unlike Ergodan who has cracked heads, and sat back as lynching were carried out in Istanbul.
Yes - you cannot stand virtue signallers who are signalling virtues you do not like. Your virtues are different to theirs. You are signalling that.
Yes, I'll repeat what I posted last night. Those who think May should have temporised about visiting our #1 military partner, #1 intelligence partner, #1 bilateral investment partner and #1 export market are fuckwits halfwits.
"Partner" indeed. That's not a partnership. And Britain exports FAR MORE to the rest of the EU than it does to the US.
Britain's no.1 (excuse my British usage instead of "#") export market is EU27.
I prefer The rest are all deficits.
Whether you like it or not, the EU is a single market.
Not for me it isn't. I sell translation rights for my books to each European nation and/or language individually. And very lucrative they are, I am happy to say. Danke Deutschland.
Though that's market.
Yep - the deals are all subject to European law. Before the single market, for example, the period of copyright authors enjoyed was different in different in European countries. Now it has been harmonised (to the German standard - life plus 70 years).
But that's just not true in any sensible interpretation of "single market". They operate as 28 (or so) very different markets, FOR ME
So for me The Single Market is anything but.
The case.
It's not just the fact that, for authors, the EU is definitely 28 different markets (in terms of places you market to, which require different marketING) but also the law is actually different, in crucial ways, in different countries. For instance some EU countries still have a net book agreement, guaranteeing high prices for books (no discounting allowed). Great for authors, tough for consumers. France and Germany still have these agreements. The UK does not.
So even the laws are crucially and significantly different across the EU.
Yes, but they are all subsidiary to EU law. There are different laws in different US states, too. Anyway, I accept that from the perspective of an author and for many others Europe can and should be treated as a collection of different markets. Many do the same with the US, of course. We definitely see California and New York very differently to Texas and Florida, for example.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
I think Donald Trump has done exactly the right thing. There have two or three terrorist attacks in the USA every year, and he has tied the inevitable attacks to come to his opposition. Who appear to value the rights of everybody in the world above american lives.
Nonsense - there has been significantly less than one Islamic terrorist attack per year in the US since 9/11, which suggests the current system is working fine. Toddlers with guns are a far bigger threat to Americans.
As others have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is not on the list despite being by far the nation with the most civilian American blood on its hands.
Moreover the majority of the major attacks have been carried out by people who were either born in the US or moved at a very young age.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Little Rock Attack - A convert born in Memphis Tennessee Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood Attack - Born in Virginia Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez - Chattanooga Attack - moved to the US at the age of 6 Syed Rizwan Farook - San Bernadino Attack - Born in Chicago (though his wife who took part in the attacks with him was from Pakistan) Omar Mateen - Orlando Attack - Born in New York Zale Thompson - New York Attack November 2014 - Born in New York Ismaaiyl Brinsley - New York Attack December 2014 - Born in New York
In fact putting together all the major islamic attacks in the US since 2009, the majority of the attackers were born in the US.
So how is this policy going to make a blind bit of difference?
That list is hardly a great advert for Islamic immigration though is it?
There is also a list of US mass-murderers with Christian backgrounds.
So what?
That list is hardly a great advert for Christian immigration though is it?
Woke up to find Theresa May hasn't resigned, Donald Trump is still President, and Jeremy Corbyn has almost split Labour in two over Article 50. What else did I miss?
Directors of the Outrage Bus Co. are making a fortune...
The point is children have no religion - ascribing religious views to young children is as absurd as ascribing political views to them. "Marxist six-year-olds are welcome at our school."
The point is children have no religion - ascribing religious views to young children is as absurd as ascribing political views to them. "Marxist six-year-olds are welcome at our school."
Just pointing out that he has been saying for years what you are saying today, wondered if you had seen it. No need to be tetchy just because I tease you sometimes x
You have been weirdly obsessed with me since you arrived on PB - once wishing me dead and, on another occasion, threatening me with violence via your thug "mates in Canning Town" for daring to declare myself a Londoner. Save your sinister kisses for someone who wants them and leave me in peace.
These were when you were calling yourself what?!
I didn't wish you dead, I quoted the BlackAdder2 episode when Percy said "Sorry I'm late" & Edmund said "Don't apologize I'm sorry you're alive", when you apologized for something.
I didn't threaten you with violence either. I said that if you told people whose families had been in Canning Town for a century that you were as much a Londoner as them, having moved there as an adult from the North, you'd probably get a slap.
I was slightly obsessed with the weird way you pretended not to be the same person under many different silly aliases that is true. I didnt think anyone could be such a wally, I was even banned for suggesting The Last Boy Scout, Bobajob etc etc were the same person. But once I was proven correct, I got over it.
If we'd indulge my hobby for a second, I have had an opportunity to take a proper look at the effect of revisions on the public finances and the ability of the government to meet the OBR's forecast for the financial year.
Total revisions to the current financial year (that is, the initial estimate for each month compared to the current estimate of the year to date were £5.3 billion, effectively reducing the deficit by 10% - though of course it represents a much smaller percentage of total income or expenditure. As we are nine months into the financial year, there have been eight sets of revisions, a total of 6 revisions downward and 2 revisions upward.
Borrowing has been revised up at local government level by a total of £2.2bn, although revisions in the last two months have been downward. Central government receipts are up by £2.5bn and central government borrowing by £3.3bn; more controversially investment has been revised down by £1.8bn. What I would take from this is that revisions to central spending have largely been in the government's favour.
Total borrowing in the previous whole financial year was £75.4bn. Absent any revisions, that total for this year to date would have been £69.1bn; but that has cumulatively been revised to £63.8bn, i.e. the total reduction has been almost twice what the initial figures each month if taken in stone would have suggested.
There does seem a bias on the negative side built into initial estimates. It is very likely the last quarter will be a wash leaving us around the £63bn for the year. Not great but another significant step in the right direction from last year.
@SophyRidgeSky: The Polish Deputy Prime Minister tells me financial services jobs are already starting to move from the UK to Poland due to Brexit #ridge
He's wrong. They were going anyway. Brexit is just a convenient excuse
Brexit will be to blame for everything for years, it will be used and abused as cover for all sorts of shaftings.
Farage pompom waving for Trump's ban on Sunday Politics.
He must really want a job from the pussy grabber in chief.
As 33% in the yougov daily poll yesterday backed a similar ban for the UK, there probable is scope for an openly Islamophobic, pro-waterboarding, protectionist party. Not one likely to win in FPTP politics though.
I think Donald Trump has done exactly the right thing. There have two or three terrorist attacks in the USA every year, and he has tied the inevitable attacks to come to his opposition. Who appear to value the rights of everybody in the world above american lives.
Nonsense - there has been significantly less than one Islamic terrorist attack per year in the US since 9/11, which suggests the current system is working fine. Toddlers with guns are a far bigger threat to Americans.
As others have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is not on the list despite being by far the nation with the most civilian American blood on its hands.
Moreover the majority of the major attacks have been carried out by people who were either born in the US or moved at a very young age.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Little Rock Attack - A convert born in Memphis Tennessee Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood Attack - Born in Virginia Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez - Chattanooga Attack - moved to the US at the age of 6 Syed Rizwan Farook - San Bernadino Attack - Born in Chicago (though his wife who took part in the attacks with him was from Pakistan) Omar Mateen - Orlando Attack - Born in New York Zale Thompson - New York Attack November 2014 - Born in New York Ismaaiyl Brinsley - New York Attack December 2014 - Born in New York
In fact putting together all the major islamic attacks in the US since 2009, the majority of the attackers were born in the US.
So how is this policy going to make a blind bit of difference?
That list is hardly a great advert for Islamic immigration though is it?
There is also a list of US mass-murderers with Christian backgrounds.
So what?
That list is hardly a great advert for Christian immigration though is it?
Oh were the people immigrants? I guess they were if they weren't Native Americans.
The point I am making, which I think you know (but we do have to go through the ritual of feigning ignorance) is that introducing, en masse, immigrants from a different religion is asking for trouble. We see it all over the world. We are now at the point where people are saying that because the terrorists are children of immigrants, and were born in/citizens of the country they are bombing/shooting up, that somehow makes a difference rather than proves the point
Yes, I'll repeat what I posted last night. Those who think May should have temporised about visiting our #1 military partner, #1 intelligence partner, #1 bilateral investment partner and #1 export market are fuckwits halfwits.
"Partner" indeed. That's not a partnership. And Britain exports FAR MORE to the rest of the EU than it does to the US.
Britain's no.1 (excuse my British usage instead of "#") export market is EU27.
I prefer The rest are all deficits.
Whether you like it or not, the EU is a single market.
Not for me it isn't. I sell translation rights for my books to each European nation and/or language individually. And very lucrative they are, I am happy to say. Danke Deutschland.
Though that's market.
But that's just not true in any sensible interpretation of "single market". They operate as 28 (or so) very different markets, FOR ME
So for me The Single Market is anything but.
The case.
Yes, but they are all subsidiary to EU law. There are different laws in different US states, too. Anyway, I accept that from the perspective of an author and for many others Europe can and should be treated as a collection of different markets. Many do the same with the US, of course. We definitely see California and New York very differently to Texas and Florida, for example.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
As I'm the poster that dragged us into this rather unlovely blind alley, I'd just like to reiterate that the Single Market in goods was probably the EEC's greatest achievement. I'll be very sorry to see us leave it.
Just as the Internet isn't some amorphous blob (if you want to know why the world is as it is, look for physical maps of the 'net), neither is the EU. Germany is important to us (and we them) in ways that Slovenia or the Czech Republic will never be. The EU has the clout it has because of Germany, France, Italy and Spain (you can argue the order if you wish). I'm sure Poland will join their ranks over time. It's not because of Malta. That's not to disrespect the EU of course, it's just an observation.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
Before the referendum Theresa May argued that completing the single market in services was a key national interest of the UK that we would be unable to pursue if we Brexit.
It was more the scrotum in my case. But just to be a party pooper, he could have a safety harness and a socking great cable on his top half, with someone paying it out to keep it out of shot.
Total borrowing in the previous whole financial year was £75.4bn. Absent any revisions, that total for this year to date would have been £69.1bn; but that has cumulatively been revised to £63.8bn, i.e. the total reduction has been almost twice what the initial figures each month if taken in stone would have suggested.
This leaves the government well placed to meet, or exceed, the OBR's forecast.
At this point last year, borrowing in the year to date was £74.5bn; at the end of the year that had risen to £75.4bn, an increase of £0.9bn (as January receipts counterbalances February and March spending). A simple addition of £0.9bn to the £63.8bn so far this year would give a figure of £64.7bn, compared to the latest OBR forecast of £68.2bn. That's a comfortable performance.
There are reasons to be even more optimistic (vis a vis the forecast at least!). We know that borrowing is down about 7.5% so far this year so we could expect the next three months - net - to be flat, or return a small surplus. I haven't had the opportunity to assess whether that 7.5% is increased receipts or lower spending, though I suspect the latter.
Equally, revisions between January and March last year - stripping out the effect of bringing housing associations onto the books) lowered the borrowing in the then year to date by £4.4bn. Equally the last few months this time around have seen substantial downwards revisions.
However it does seem unlikely that the government will hit was the OBR's forecast used to be for this year, which was £55.5 billion. Nevertheless without a full budget in April, there will be effectively another six months before the chancellor has an opportunity to spend everything that he has saved.
Yes, I'll repeat what I posted last night. Those who think May should have temporised about visiting our #1 military partner, #1 intelligence partner, #1 bilateral investment partner and #1 export market are fuckwits halfwits.
"Partner" indeed. That's not a partnership. And Britain exports FAR MORE to the rest of the EU than it does to the US.
Britain's no.1 (excuse my British usage instead of "#") export market is EU27.
I prefer The rest are all deficits.
Whether you like it or not, the EU is a single market.
Not for me it isn't. I sell translation rights for my books to each European nation and/or language individually. And very lucrative they are, I am happy to say. Danke Deutschland.
Though that's market.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
As I'm the poster that dragged us into this rather unlovely blind alley, I'd just like to reiterate that the Single Market in goods was probably the EEC's greatest achievement. I'll be very sorry to see us leave it.
Just as the Internet isn't some amorphous blob (if you want to know why the world is as it is, look for physical maps of the 'net), neither is the EU. Germany is important to us (and we them) in ways that Slovenia or the Czech Republic will never be. The EU has the clout it has because of Germany, France, Italy and Spain (you can argue the order if you wish). I'm sure Poland will join their ranks over time. It's not because of Malta. That's not to disrespect the EU of course, it's just an observation.
I agree. If only the EU had stopped there.... I still hope we will have a tariff free arrangement with them.
@SophyRidgeSky: The Polish Deputy Prime Minister tells me financial services jobs are already starting to move from the UK to Poland due to Brexit #ridge
He's wrong. They were going anyway. Brexit is just a convenient excuse
Brexit will be to blame for everything for years, it will be used and abused as cover for all sorts of shaftings.
As it should be. The educated / intelligentsia voted Remain overwhelmingly. They will remind the rest for a long time to come.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
Before the referendum Theresa May argued that completing the single market in services was a key national interest of the UK that we would be unable to pursue if we Brexit.
This is a genuine question (which I have been unable to answer for myself) - do you see a single market in services as being achievable and if so, over what timescales? I'd like a thoughtful Europhile view.
I'm genuinely not trying to score debating points here - while the single market in services isn't in anyway complete, it's somewhat serviceable, even as it stands today.
Perhaps someone could start a petition calling for Trump's new policy to be copied in the UK.
As in the previous 'Stop immigration to the UK' petitions I suspect there would be a rather closer correlation between signatories and marginal constituencies than the Trump ones have.
Yes, I'll repeat what I posted last night. Those who think May should have temporised about visiting our #1 military partner, #1 intelligence partner, #1 bilateral investment partner and #1 export market are fuckwits halfwits.
"Partner" indeed. That's not a partnership. And Britain exports FAR MORE to the rest of the EU than it does to the US.
Britain's no.1 (excuse my British usage instead of "#") export market is EU27.
I prefer The rest are all deficits.
Whether you like it or not, the EU is a single market.
Not for me it isn't. I sell translation rights for my books to each European nation and/or language individually. And very lucrative they are, I am happy to say. Danke Deutschland.
Though that's market.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
As I'm the poster that dragged us into this rather unlovely blind alley, I'd just like to reiterate that the Single Market in goods was probably the EEC's greatest achievement. I'll be very sorry to see us leave it.
Just as the Internet isn't some amorphous blob (if you want to know why the world is as it is, look for physical maps of the 'net), neither is the EU. Germany is important to us (and we them) in ways that Slovenia or the Czech Republic will never be. The EU has the clout it has because of Germany, France, Italy and Spain (you can argue the order if you wish). I'm sure Poland will join their ranks over time. It's not because of Malta. That's not to disrespect the EU of course, it's just an observation.
I agree. If only the EU had stopped there.... I still hope we will have a tariff free arrangement with them.
I still cannot imagine why many people have this view. It is theoretically not possible. Nothing to do with us or the Germans or anyone else. It is the moment we decided we would do our own trade deals that decided it.
"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."
Mr. Pong, jein. Information sharing with Germany's secret service (BND?) has declined due to the Germans being leakier than a sieve. It doesn't enhance our security to have secrets fall into nefarious hands because the Germans have been infiltrated.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
Before the referendum Theresa May argued that completing the single market in services was a key national interest of the UK that we would be unable to pursue if we Brexit.
This is a genuine question (which I have been unable to answer for myself) - do you see a single market in services as being achievable and if so, over what timescales? I'd like a thoughtful Europhile view.
I'm genuinely not trying to score debating points here - while the single market in services isn't in anyway complete, it's somewhat serviceable, even as it stands today.
In legal and financial services it has been an absolute slog and it very far from complete.
You, of course, would prefer to be associated with other virtues. Hence your post.
Nonsense - I can't stand Trump, and I can't stand virtue signallers. Last night's fuss over why hasn't the PM condemned Trump for his EO, was a load of piss and wind.
Trump so far hasn't tortured any Muslims, unlike Ergodan who has cracked heads, and sat back as lynching were carried out in Istanbul.
Yes - you cannot stand virtue signallers who are signalling virtues you do not like. Your virtues are different to theirs. You are signalling that.
Nonsense - I'm not signalling that, and you know it.
I am not signing, as I am rather looking forward to Trumps visit and the maximum opportunity to embarass the pussy grabber in chief. The Queen will do her duty and be polite to him, she has done so for any number of foreign despots over the years.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
Before the referendum Theresa May argued that completing the single market in services was a key national interest of the UK that we would be unable to pursue if we Brexit.
Yes, although progress in that has been painfully slow over the last 20 years. As an example I can recall one case in my 17 years at the Scottish bar where Dutch jurists came across and were given leave by the Court to represent some Dutch fishermen in the Court of Session. It was the talk of the steamie but it was 10 years ago. It just doesn't happen. It is true to the extent that anyone was pushing for a single market in services it was the UK for obvious reasons.
You have selective memory syndrome but don't worry because I'm tired of raking up old ground with you. Happy to debate you civilly in future but do me a favour and lay off the weird kisses and such - it's just odd.
I have said several times that The Last Boy Scout, Boba Fett and of course Bobajob were all my personas - and I have also queried why it mattered so much to you (or anyone else)? I would have thought that the scouting links between them made it obvious but obviously not! As it is, as a few people (not just you) cared so deeply that one anonymous poster had an alter ego as, erm, another anonymous poster I came back as Jobabob - the most boringly uncryptic name imaginable!
All of the outrage in the world now does nothing to excuse the failure of the establishment in American, and maybe European politics too, to show as much interest in the white/lower W/C voters for far too long as it has done for others. The plain fact is that this group of voters has been shamelessly let down for too long and will continue to elect people like Trump until their concerns are addressed.
Right. And what really frightens the opposition is not that Trump will be awful, but that he might be good enough that more Trumps are elected. We could see a complete overturning of the way politics has been done since at least the 60s.
I am not signing, as I am rather looking forward to Trumps visit and the maximum opportunity to embarass the pussy grabber in chief. The Queen will do her duty and be polite to him, she has done so for any number of foreign despots over the years.
@SophyRidgeSky: The Polish Deputy Prime Minister tells me financial services jobs are already starting to move from the UK to Poland due to Brexit #ridge
He's wrong. They were going anyway. Brexit is just a convenient excuse
Brexit will be to blame for everything for years, it will be used and abused as cover for all sorts of shaftings.
As it should be. The educated / intelligentsia voted Remain overwhelmingly. They will remind the rest for a long time to come.
Really? I thought the split for ABC1s was 56:44 - perhaps I'm mis-remembering. Or perhaps you're speaking of academia, in which case, point cheerfully conceded.
"Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen."
If it had simply said "Do not allow Donald Trump to enter Britain", I would have signed it.
Mr. Pong, recently, the information sharing was diminished because, mysteriously, whenever we told the Germans anything dodgy people learned those same secrets in short order.
Yes, I'll repeat what I posted last night. Those who think May should have temporised about visiting our #1 military partner, #1 intelligence partner, #1 bilateral investment partner and #1 export market are fuckwits halfwits.
"Partner" indeed. That's not a partnership. And Britain exports FAR MORE to the rest of the EU than it does to the US.
Britain's no.1 (excuse my British usage instead of "#") export market is EU27.
I prefer The rest are all deficits.
Whether you like it or not, the EU is a single market.
Not for me it isn't. I sell translation rights for my books to each European nation and/or language individually. And very lucrative they are, I am happy to say. Danke Deutschland.
Though that's market.
Yep - the deals are all subject to European law. Before the single market, for example, the period of copyright authors enjoyed was different in different in European countries. Now it has been harmonised (to the German standard - life plus 70 years).
But that's just not true in any sensible interpretation of "single market". They operate as 28 (or so) very different markets, FOR ME
So for me The Single Market is anything but.
The case.
It's . The UK does not.
So even the laws are crucially and significantly different across the EU.
Yes, but they are all subsidiary to EU law. There are different laws in different US states, too. Anyway, I accept that from the perspective of an author and for many others Europe can and should be treated as a collection of different markets. Many do the same with the US, of course. We definitely see California and New York very differently to Texas and Florida, for example.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
I never said otherwise. Have you tried being a purveyor of marijuana-based products in the US single market, or even a gun-maker for that matter? ;-)
You have selective memory syndrome but don't worry because I'm tired of raking up old ground with you. Happy to debate you civilly in future but do me a favour and lay off the weird kisses and such - it's just odd.
I have said several times that The Last Boy Scout, Boba Fett and of course Bobajob were all my personas - and I have also queried why it mattered so much to you (or anyone else)? I would have thought that the scouting links between them made it obvious but obviously not! As it is, as a few people (not just you) cared so deeply that one anonymous poster had an alter ego as, erm, another anonymous poster I came back as Jobabob - the most boringly uncryptic name imaginable!
Everything I just posted was true, there is no selective memory there.
The silly aliases didn't matter that much in the scheme of things, it was just irritating, and not that funny. I wondered why anyone would be bothered.
I'll do as I like, you can respond or not, down to you
All of the outrage in the world now does nothing to excuse the failure of the establishment in American, and maybe European politics too, to show as much interest in the white/lower W/C voters for far too long as it has done for others. The plain fact is that this group of voters has been shamelessly let down for too long and will continue to elect people like Trump until their concerns are addressed.
Right. And what really frightens the opposition is not that Trump will be awful, but that he might be good enough that more Trumps are elected. We could see a complete overturning of the way politics has been done since at least the 60s.
You, of course, would prefer to be associated with other virtues. Hence your post.
Nonsense - I can't stand Trump, and I can't stand virtue signallers. Last night's fuss over why hasn't the PM condemned Trump for his EO, was a load of piss and wind.
Trump so far hasn't tortured any Muslims, unlike Ergodan who has cracked heads, and sat back as lynching were carried out in Istanbul.
Yes - you cannot stand virtue signallers who are signalling virtues you do not like. Your virtues are different to theirs. You are signalling that.
Nonsenese - I'm not signalling that, and you know it.
Nope - it looks like clear virtue signalling to me.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
The alternative to the imperfect Single Market is no common trading system at all. Which is where the EU is at across the board. Do you prefer a glass half-full (or half-empty) or no glass at all?
Yes, I'll repeat what I posted last night. Those who think May should have temporised about visiting our #1 military partner, #1 intelligence partner, #1 bilateral investment partner and #1 export market are fuckwits halfwits.
"Partner" indeed. That's not a partnership. And Britain exports FAR MORE to the rest of the EU than it does to the US.
Britain's no.1 (excuse my British usage instead of "#") export market is EU27.
I prefer The rest are all deficits.
Whether you like it or not, the EU is a single market.
Not for me it isn't. I sell translation rights for my books to each European nation and/or language individually. And very lucrative they are, I am happy to say. Danke Deutschland.
Though that's market.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
As I'm the poster that dragged us into this rather unlovely blind alley, I'd just like to reiterate that the Single Market in goods was probably the EEC's greatest achievement. I'll be very sorry to see us leave it.
Just as the Internet isn't some amorphous blob (if you want to know why the world is as it is, look for physical maps of the 'net), neither is the EU. Germany is important to us (and we them) in ways that Slovenia or the Czech Republic will never be. The EU has the clout it has because of Germany, France, Italy and Spain (you can argue the order if you wish). I'm sure Poland will join their ranks over time. It's not because of Malta. That's not to disrespect the EU of course, it's just an observation.
I agree. If only the EU had stopped there.... I still hope we will have a tariff free arrangement with them.
I still cannot imagine why many people have this view. It is theoretically not possible. Nothing to do with us or the Germans or anyone else. It is the moment we decided we would do our own trade deals that decided it.
Not so. It would be possible to have no tariffs with the EU but have arrangements by which tariffs were payable on non EU imports that were being re exported.
I am not signing, as I am rather looking forward to Trumps visit and the maximum opportunity to embarass the pussy grabber in chief. The Queen will do her duty and be polite to him, she has done so for any number of foreign despots over the years.
Martin McGuinness the cuddly version of Trump?
Martin McGuiness has an unsavoury past, but his role in the Peace Process does him credit. The Queen is a Christian and values repentance. You do not have to make peace with friends, peacemaking involves talking to enemies.
You have selective memory syndrome but don't worry because I'm tired of raking up old ground with you. Happy to debate you civilly in future but do me a favour and lay off the weird kisses and such - it's just odd.
I have said several times that The Last Boy Scout, Boba Fett and of course Bobajob were all my personas - and I have also queried why it mattered so much to you (or anyone else)? I would have thought that the scouting links between them made it obvious but obviously not! As it is, as a few people (not just you) cared so deeply that one anonymous poster had an alter ego as, erm, another anonymous poster I came back as Jobabob - the most boringly uncryptic name imaginable!
Everything I just posted was true, there is no selective memory there.
The silly aliases didn't matter that much in the scheme of things, it was just irritating, and not that funny. I wondered why anyone would be bothered.
I'll do as I like, you can respond or not, down to you
No it wasn't true as you were banned for wishing a poster dead - the way you have 'explained' your behaviour above is such a tortuous stretching of the truth it's effectively a lie I'm afraid. I came back to this forum because you had gone - now you are back and obsessively stalking me again I may have to reconsider.
Yes, I'll repeat what I posted last night. Those who think May should have temporised about visiting our #1 military partner, #1 intelligence partner, #1 bilateral investment partner and #1 export market are fuckwits halfwits.
"Partner" indeed. That's not a partnership. And Britain exports FAR MORE to the rest of the EU than it does to the US.
Britain's no.1 (excuse my British usage instead of "#") export market is EU27.
I prefer The rest are all deficits.
Whether you like it or not, the EU is a single market.
Not for me it isn't. I sell translation rights for my books to each European nation and/or language individually. And very lucrative they are, I am happy to say. Danke Deutschland.
Though that's market.
Yep - the deals are all subject to European law. Before the single market, for example, the period of copyright authors enjoyed was different in different in European countries. Now it has been harmonised (to the German standard - life plus 70 years).
But that's just not true in any sensible interpretation of "single market". They operate as 28 (or so) very different markets, FOR ME
So for me The Single Market is anything but.
The case.
It's . The UK does not.
So even the laws are crucially and significantly different across the EU.
Yes, but they are all subsidiary to EU law. There are different laws in different US states, too. Anyway, I accept that from the perspective of an author and for many others Europe can and should be treated as a collection of different markets. Many do the same with the US, of course. We definitely see California and New York very differently to Texas and Florida, for example.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
I never said otherwise. Have you tried being a purveyor of marijuana-based products in the US single market, or even a gun-maker for that matter? ;-)
No but it sounds a lot more exciting than being a lawyer.
We know the US ban affects Iranians who are also Brits. But does the Iranian ban apply to US citizens who are Brits? Would joint US-British citizen Johnson be allowed into Iran?
Oh were the people immigrants? I guess they were if they weren't Native Americans.
The point I am making, which I think you know (but we do have to go through the ritual of feigning ignorance) is that introducing, en masse, immigrants from a different religion is asking for trouble. We see it all over the world. We are now at the point where people are saying that because the terrorists are children of immigrants, and were born in/citizens of the country they are bombing/shooting up, that somehow makes a difference rather than proves the point
The point it makes very clearly is that Trump's 4 month ban will achieve absolutely nothing. And if religion is the basis of all this then why is it only 7 carefully selected countries are chosen? And not even those who are most guilty of sponsoring and supporting terrorism and from which almost all the perpetrators of the greatest terrorist attack in US history came?
You have selective memory syndrome but don't worry because I'm tired of raking up old ground with you. Happy to debate you civilly in future but do me a favour and lay off the weird kisses and such - it's just odd.
I have said several times that The Last Boy Scout, Boba Fett and of course Bobajob were all my personas - and I have also queried why it mattered so much to you (or anyone else)? I would have thought that the scouting links between them made it obvious but obviously not! As it is, as a few people (not just you) cared so deeply that one anonymous poster had an alter ego as, erm, another anonymous poster I came back as Jobabob - the most boringly uncryptic name imaginable!
Everything I just posted was true, there is no selective memory there.
The silly aliases didn't matter that much in the scheme of things, it was just irritating, and not that funny. I wondered why anyone would be bothered.
I'll do as I like, you can respond or not, down to you
No it wasn't true as you were banned for wishing a poster dead - the way you have 'explained' your behaviour above is such a tortuous stretching of the truth it's effectively a lie I'm afraid. I came back to this forum because you had gone - now you are back and obsessively stalking me again I may have to reconsider.
No, I didn't lie, I told the exact truth
Do what you like. everyone on here likes a debate, that's what it is for. I pull you up more than others because I think you are wrong/stupid more often, its not stalking.
All I did today was link to a youtube of the point you were making. Some might find that interesting or helpful.
All of the outrage in the world now does nothing to excuse the failure of the establishment in American, and maybe European politics too, to show as much interest in the white/lower W/C voters for far too long as it has done for others. The plain fact is that this group of voters has been shamelessly let down for too long and will continue to elect people like Trump until their concerns are addressed.
Right. And what really frightens the opposition is not that Trump will be awful, but that he might be good enough that more Trumps are elected. We could see a complete overturning of the way politics has been done since at least the 60s.
You, of course, would prefer to be associated with other virtues. Hence your post.
Nonsense - I can't stand Trump, and I can't stand virtue signallers. Last night's fuss over why hasn't the PM condemned Trump for his EO, was a load of piss and wind.
Trump so far hasn't tortured any Muslims, unlike Ergodan who has cracked heads, and sat back as lynching were carried out in Istanbul.
Yes - you cannot stand virtue signallers who are signalling virtues you do not like. Your virtues are different to theirs. You are signalling that.
Nonsenese - I'm not signalling that, and you know it.
Nope - it looks like clear virtue signalling to me.
I am not signing, as I am rather looking forward to Trumps visit and the maximum opportunity to embarass the pussy grabber in chief. The Queen will do her duty and be polite to him, she has done so for any number of foreign despots over the years.
Golly - an almost sensible post. Although despite being an idiot Trump does not fit the dictionary definition of despot.
I think it is time that you gave up on this one Southam. The fact is that the Single Market remains highly imperfect for anything other than physical goods.
Before the referendum Theresa May argued that completing the single market in services was a key national interest of the UK that we would be unable to pursue if we Brexit.
This is a genuine question (which I have been unable to answer for myself) - do you see a single market in services as being achievable and if so, over what timescales? I'd like a thoughtful Europhile view.
I'm genuinely not trying to score debating points here - while the single market in services isn't in anyway complete, it's somewhat serviceable, even as it stands today.
I'm flattered that you think of me as a thoughtful Europhile.
I think in practice services shouldn't be considered as a simple parallel to the single market in goods but as many different single markets, some of which are realistically achievable with a similar level of political will to that shown in the 80s, and others will always remain member state issues for reasons of language and culture. The priority should be in financial services (and not only because this is, or would have been, a British interest).
Comments
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3432339/Credit-Suisse-axe-4-000-jobs-1-6bn-loss-Lender-London-operations-Poland-Dublin.html (Credit Suisse)
https://www.ft.com/content/731b97ab-88c6-3289-a615-285c94459f94 (BNP Paribas)
https://www.ft.com/content/1df9e49c-a153-11e4-8d19-00144feab7de (UBS and BNY Mellon)
Anyway, I've signed the petition in order to embarrass the government.
Scunthorpe 4
Thurrock 12
Amber Valley 17
Cannock 17
Copeland 19
Nuneaton 20
Stoke Central 24
Bolton W 24
...
Hornsey 320
Hackney N 319
Hackney S 315
Islington N 321
Deptford 279
Dulwich 269
Bristol W 273
Brighton P 269
So, Sturgeon's "leave the UK, join the EU" double stance is supported by barely a quarter of Scots.
Why did he not ban Saudis ? Answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This ban had nothing to do with terrorism. It is simply to let the WWC know that he was keeping his promise. Gradually it will go away, just like the wall will not be built apart from near big cities. Congress will not authorise $15bn.
5 eyes should become 4.
Increased security cooperation with our European allies who share our values would make sense, too.
Trump so far hasn't tortured any Muslims, unlike Ergodan who has cracked heads, and sat back as lynching were carried out in Istanbul.
It's called the churn.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has had four - the last one being 30 October – 1 November 2007.
Wasn't that when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister ?
Total revisions to the current financial year (that is, the initial estimate for each month compared to the current estimate of the year to date were £5.3 billion, effectively reducing the deficit by 10% - though of course it represents a much smaller percentage of total income or expenditure. As we are nine months into the financial year, there have been eight sets of revisions, a total of 6 revisions downward and 2 revisions upward.
Borrowing has been revised up at local government level by a total of £2.2bn, although revisions in the last two months have been downward. Central government receipts are up by £2.5bn and central government borrowing by £3.3bn; more controversially investment has been revised down by £1.8bn. What I would take from this is that revisions to central spending have largely been in the government's favour.
Total borrowing in the previous whole financial year was £75.4bn. Absent any revisions, that total for this year to date would have been £69.1bn; but that has cumulatively been revised to £63.8bn, i.e. the total reduction has been almost twice what the initial figures each month if taken in stone would have suggested.
I didn't wish you dead, I quoted the BlackAdder2 episode when Percy said "Sorry I'm late" & Edmund said "Don't apologize I'm sorry you're alive", when you apologized for something.
I didn't threaten you with violence either. I said that if you told people whose families had been in Canning Town for a century that you were as much a Londoner as them, having moved there as an adult from the North, you'd probably get a slap.
I was slightly obsessed with the weird way you pretended not to be the same person under many different silly aliases that is true. I didnt think anyone could be such a wally, I was even banned for suggesting The Last Boy Scout, Bobajob etc etc were the same person. But once I was proven correct, I got over it.
The point I am making, which I think you know (but we do have to go through the ritual of feigning ignorance) is that introducing, en masse, immigrants from a different religion is asking for trouble. We see it all over the world. We are now at the point where people are saying that because the terrorists are children of immigrants, and were born in/citizens of the country they are bombing/shooting up, that somehow makes a difference rather than proves the point
Just as the Internet isn't some amorphous blob (if you want to know why the world is as it is, look for physical maps of the 'net), neither is the EU. Germany is important to us (and we them) in ways that Slovenia or the Czech Republic will never be. The EU has the clout it has because of Germany, France, Italy and Spain (you can argue the order if you wish). I'm sure Poland will join their ranks over time. It's not because of Malta. That's not to disrespect the EU of course, it's just an observation.
Hackney N 452
Hornsey 451
Hackeny S 431
Islington N 430
Islington S has only 312.
Poor Emily, how will she look her friends in the face after such a dismal showing.
At this point last year, borrowing in the year to date was £74.5bn; at the end of the year that had risen to £75.4bn, an increase of £0.9bn (as January receipts counterbalances February and March spending). A simple addition of £0.9bn to the £63.8bn so far this year would give a figure of £64.7bn, compared to the latest OBR forecast of £68.2bn. That's a comfortable performance.
There are reasons to be even more optimistic (vis a vis the forecast at least!). We know that borrowing is down about 7.5% so far this year so we could expect the next three months - net - to be flat, or return a small surplus. I haven't had the opportunity to assess whether that 7.5% is increased receipts or lower spending, though I suspect the latter.
Equally, revisions between January and March last year - stripping out the effect of bringing housing associations onto the books) lowered the borrowing in the then year to date by £4.4bn. Equally the last few months this time around have seen substantial downwards revisions.
However it does seem unlikely that the government will hit was the OBR's forecast used to be for this year, which was £55.5 billion. Nevertheless without a full budget in April, there will be effectively another six months before the chancellor has an opportunity to spend everything that he has saved.
https://twitter.com/ggatehouse/status/825656136816812033
I'm genuinely not trying to score debating points here - while the single market in services isn't in anyway complete, it's somewhat serviceable, even as it stands today.
As in the previous 'Stop immigration to the UK' petitions I suspect there would be a rather closer correlation between signatories and marginal constituencies than the Trump ones have.
"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."
You have selective memory syndrome but don't worry because I'm tired of raking up old ground with you. Happy to debate you civilly in future but do me a favour and lay off the weird kisses and such - it's just odd.
I have said several times that The Last Boy Scout, Boba Fett and of course Bobajob were all my personas - and I have also queried why it mattered so much to you (or anyone else)? I would have thought that the scouting links between them made it obvious but obviously not! As it is, as a few people (not just you) cared so deeply that one anonymous poster had an alter ego as, erm, another anonymous poster I came back as Jobabob - the most boringly uncryptic name imaginable!
Some teacups rattled, move on.
"Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen."
If it had simply said "Do not allow Donald Trump to enter Britain", I would have signed it.
The silly aliases didn't matter that much in the scheme of things, it was just irritating, and not that funny. I wondered why anyone would be bothered.
I'll do as I like, you can respond or not, down to you
But does the Iranian ban apply to US citizens who are Brits?
Would joint US-British citizen Johnson be allowed into Iran?
Do what you like. everyone on here likes a debate, that's what it is for. I pull you up more than others because I think you are wrong/stupid more often, its not stalking.
All I did today was link to a youtube of the point you were making. Some might find that interesting or helpful.
I think in practice services shouldn't be considered as a simple parallel to the single market in goods but as many different single markets, some of which are realistically achievable with a similar level of political will to that shown in the 80s, and others will always remain member state issues for reasons of language and culture. The priority should be in financial services (and not only because this is, or would have been, a British interest).