Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Who cares a jot , I am of the "there are only men and women" all the rest is just flim flam.
Going to Stoke myself tomorrow (short train ride from Nottingham). I think it's the more important of the two in any case - a loss to the Tories would be embarrassing but essentially a one-day wonder linked to the nuclear power issue, but a loss to UKIP would be a serious nuisance (which is why the Tories aren't really bothering in Stoke).
That's like choosing between catastrophe and armageddon. How did it come to that?
What time this evening are we expecting Corbyn's latest appointees to either resign or be declared to be the favourite to replace him?
Long Bailey is 3rd favourite on Betfair at 10.5/12.5.
I'm trying to trade both sides, but ultimately keeping her ahead of 'someone else' who has been a consistently great dark horse in this contest thus far.
When I pointed that out a week or two ago, I was more or less told I was being a hysterical remoaner
I think a fair division of assets and liabilities is reasonable for both Brexit and a putative Scexit. Most UK liaibilities in the EU are contingent (loan guarantees etc) - not requiring cash now, and minimally at risk unless the EU actually comes apart. On the assets side however we have paid a very significant % of the EU's net positive funding over recent decades and have a very reasonable claim to the same % of the value of eg buildings that we have paid for but won't in future gain benefit from. An accountant or a lawyer would very likely conclude that they owe us cash now for our share of assets whilst we owe them a continued exposure but no cash for potential future claims. (unless, of course, the said accountant or lawyer is from one of the 27...)
All valid points imo, and certainly adds a little context to the liabilities claim that up till now, has looked decidedly bleak. After all is said and done I doubt we’ll get a rebate, but the astronomical figures being banded around may not be quite as high as suggested. – How odd that this only becomes an issue now, but not mentioned at all when tallying up the true £cost to the UK for EU membership.
Amazing how it is valid for rUK but absolutely a NO NO for Scotland, double standards on here are breathtaking
I don’t remember anyone saying Scotland would not be entitled to what it had contributed to, just the complexity of determining what it was exactly and how to go about it.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Who cares a jot , I am of the "there are only men and women" all the rest is just flim flam.
This may seem far fetched, but I am old enough to remember when Labour thought about how to take Tory seats, rather than choosing which one of its own seats it's better to lose.
We can effectively aim for differing bi-lateral relationships with each of the 27 nations if we choose, and they are not obligated to take a euro-line either.
We could aim for that, but it would be a complete waste of our time. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the EU27 failing to agree a common position on freedom of movement (adjusted for the historical position of Ireland).
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Ummm... no. We would need 7,600 aircraft for £60bn in pennies (assuming we use the 747 cargo option with the 278kg payload). The aircraft would cost about £1.5tn - about 25 times the debt.
Yeah, but at the end of which, we'd own a MASSIVE FLEET OF 747s!
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Ummm... no. We would need 7,600 aircraft for £60bn in pennies (assuming we use the 747 cargo option with the 278kg payload). The aircraft would cost about £1.5tn - about 25 times the debt.
Yeah, but at the end of which, we'd own a MASSIVE FLEET OF 747s!
I wonder if economies of scale would help out with the final cost of such a fleet?
Going to Stoke myself tomorrow (short train ride from Nottingham). I think it's the more important of the two in any case - a loss to the Tories would be embarrassing but essentially a one-day wonder linked to the nuclear power issue, but a loss to UKIP would be a serious nuisance (which is why the Tories aren't really bothering in Stoke).
That's like choosing between catastrophe and armageddon. How did it come to that?
Sure, naturally we hope to hold both comfortably. But I think it makes sense to fight Stoke hardest, especially for me, since it's just down the road from me.
Incidentally, I'm not standing in the County election in May after all as various personal priorities have had to take preecedence this time.
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Ummm... no. We would need 7,600 aircraft for £60bn in pennies (assuming we use the 747 cargo option with the 278kg payload). The aircraft would cost about £1.5tn - about 25 times the debt.
Yeah, but at the end of which, we'd own a MASSIVE FLEET OF 747s!
President Trump and Boeing would be very happy....
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Well, it depends how bad. A deal involving payment of £60bn would certainly be worse than no deal, so I'm not sure their over-egging of the pudding to such a laughable degree would be terribly clever, were they to mean it. However, I'm sure the UK government don't believe they mean it.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
While we continue to have liabilities, surely we must continue to enjoy benefits.
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Ummm... no. We would need 7,600 aircraft for £60bn in pennies (assuming we use the 747 cargo option with the 278kg payload). The aircraft would cost about £1.5tn - about 25 times the debt.
Assuming we buy 7600 new planes for the job!
We could use just one and do 7,600 flights but I think it would diminish the effect. They would have time to move the coins out of the way and Brussels would not be buried in a pile of gleaming coins.
If this plan ever comes anywhere near fruition, then I think we should go long on copper futures....
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
... eventually.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
It will probably end up at £350M a week liability, all the pain with zero gain. How the Europeans will chuckle.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Well, it depends how bad. A deal involving payment of £60bn would certainly be worse than no deal, so I'm not sure their over-egging of the pudding to such a laughable degree would be terribly clever, were they to mean it. However, I'm sure the UK government don't believe they mean it.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
This gives US leverage. We can just walk away. We will survive. We are Britain. They are a bunch of semi-evolved Fascists and frog eating barbarians.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
This gives US leverage. We can just walk away. We will survive. We are Britain. They are a bunch of semi-evolved Fascists and frog eating barbarians.
Ah, the cocktail hour a cometh...
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming it started a good while ago.
Mr. G, a deal would be best. However, you must admit that more than a million pounds as the UK contribution alone for every single employee does seem a shade... large.
I do agree with your implied suggestion that the pensions result would have implications for a future second Scottish vote.
However, the same answer should apply to both. The UK pays the pensions of UK nationals who worked for the EU up till now, Scotland pays the pensions of Scottish nationals (if Scotland were to vote for separation) who worked for the UK.
It would be clearly unfair if the UK tried to force an independent Scotland to pay for new and ongoing UK pensions, as it would be for the EU to try and force the UK to pay for EU pensions after we left.
For EU/Civil servants at those levels , £1M pension liability will be well low MD. For me we will have a liability for all the existing workforce up to point we leave. That will be some lucrative contract to work out how much that equates to , but for sure it will be a huge sum. No matter what some of the more exitable peopel on here say re it is just pay and go , the pensions are a liability of the government that issued them and they will have to fork out. They will hold responsibility for the CETV till date of leaving eth scheme.
Mr. Meeks, there was a case in the US where a chap had to pay thousands for a silly reason. So he paid in cents and forced the state authorities to collect it (in accordance with the law).
When I pointed that out a week or two ago, I was more or less told I was being a hysterical remoaner
I think a fair division of assets and liabilities is reasonable for both Brexit and a putative Scexit. Most UK liaibilities in the EU are contingent (loan guarantees etc) - not requiring cash now, and minimally at risk unless the EU actually comes apart. On the assets side however we have paid a very significant % of the EU's net positive funding over recent decades and have a very reasonable claim to the same % of the value of eg buildings that we have paid for but won't in future gain benefit from. An accountant or a lawyer would very likely conclude that they owe us cash now for our share of assets whilst we owe them a continued exposure but no cash for potential future claims. (unless, of course, the said accountant or lawyer is from one of the 27...)
All valid points imo, and certainly adds a little context to the liabilities claim that up till now, has looked decidedly bleak. After all is said and done I doubt we’ll get a rebate, but the astronomical figures being banded around may not be quite as high as suggested. – How odd that this only becomes an issue now, but not mentioned at all when tallying up the true £cost to the UK for EU membership.
Amazing how it is valid for rUK but absolutely a NO NO for Scotland, double standards on here are breathtaking
I don't think anyone has questioned that iScotland would have a share of the UK's physical assets, although for practical purposes the starting point would be those assets located in iScotland. It was when people started claiming that iScotland owned 8% of "the pound" because that was an "asset" that it became silly.
I never saw anyone claim that Charles, 8% of the pounds perhaps.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Who cares a jot , I am of the "there are only men and women" all the rest is just flim flam.
When I pointed that out a week or two ago, I was more or less told I was being a hysterical remoaner
I think a fair division of assets and liabilities is reasonable for both Brexit and a putative Scexit. Most UK liaibilities in the EU are contingent (loan guarantees etc) - not requiring cash now, and minimally at risk unless the EU actually comes apart. On the assets side however we have paid a very significant % of the EU's net positive funding over recent decades and have a very reasonable claim to the same % of the value of eg buildings that we have paid for but won't in future gain benefit from. An accountant or a lawyer would very likely conclude that they owe us cash now for our share of assets whilst we owe them a continued exposure but no cash for potential future claims. (unless, of course, the said accountant or lawyer is from one of the 27...)
All valid points imo, and certainly adds a little context to the liabilities claim that up till now, has looked decidedly bleak. After all is said and done I doubt we’ll get a rebate, but the astronomical figures being banded around may not be quite as high as suggested. – How odd that this only becomes an issue now, but not mentioned at all when tallying up the true £cost to the UK for EU membership.
Amazing how it is valid for rUK but absolutely a NO NO for Scotland, double standards on here are breathtaking
I don’t remember anyone saying Scotland would not be entitled to what it had contributed to, just the complexity of determining what it was exactly and how to go about it.
You must have been on a long break Simon. It will be complex for certain, especially at same time as EU retreat.
One penny pieces aren't legal tender above 20 pence, even in the UK.
I thought legal tender doesn't mean what people thought it does? (It'a something do with acceptable settlement for a court ordered payment)
If sued on a debt you can plead a defence of tender, which is a good defence provided 1. you did in fact tender the sum sought, in legal tender and 2. you pay the sum sought into court at the same time as pleading the defence.
Or at least that was true when I were a lad workin down t' law school.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Who cares a jot , I am of the "there are only men and women" all the rest is just flim flam.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Who cares a jot , I am of the "there are only men and women" all the rest is just flim flam.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Who cares a jot , I am of the "there are only men and women" all the rest is just flim flam.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Who cares a jot , I am of the "there are only men and women" all the rest is just flim flam.
And which of the two are you?
Clue , I am not a woman
You can't say that, it's a completely unacceptable bit of binary patriarchalism. You mean:"I do not currently choose to self-identify as a woman".
Mr. Meeks, there was a case in the US where a chap had to pay thousands for a silly reason. So he paid in cents and forced the state authorities to collect it (in accordance with the law).
Think that was a few months ago.
That was in the US. They can't even drive on the correct side of the road.
When I pointed that out a week or two ago, I was more or less told I was being a hysterical remoaner
I think a fair division of assets and liabilities is reasonable for both Brexit and a putative Scexit. Most UK liaibilities in the EU are contingent (loan guarantees etc) - not requiring cash now, and minimally at risk unless the EU actually comes apart. On the assets side however we have paid a very significant % of the EU's net positive funding over recent decades and have a very reasonable claim to the same % of the value of eg buildings that we have paid for but won't in future gain benefit from. An accountant or a lawyer would very likely conclude that they owe us cash now for our share of assets whilst we owe them a continued exposure but no cash for potential future claims. (unless, of course, the said accountant or lawyer is from one of the 27...)
All valid points imo, and certainly adds a little context to the liabilities claim that up till now, has looked decidedly bleak. After all is said and done I doubt we’ll get a rebate, but the astronomical figures being banded around may not be quite as high as suggested. – How odd that this only becomes an issue now, but not mentioned at all when tallying up the true £cost to the UK for EU membership.
Amazing how it is valid for rUK but absolutely a NO NO for Scotland, double standards on here are breathtaking
I don't think anyone has questioned that iScotland would have a share of the UK's physical assets, although for practical purposes the starting point would be those assets located in iScotland. It was when people started claiming that iScotland owned 8% of "the pound" because that was an "asset" that it became silly.
I never saw anyone claim that Charles, 8% of the pounds perhaps.
There were certainly people claiming they "owned" the pound sterling
Going to Stoke myself tomorrow (short train ride from Nottingham). I think it's the more important of the two in any case - a loss to the Tories would be embarrassing but essentially a one-day wonder linked to the nuclear power issue, but a loss to UKIP would be a serious nuisance (which is why the Tories aren't really bothering in Stoke).
That's like choosing between catastrophe and armageddon. How did it come to that?
Sure, naturally we hope to hold both comfortably. But I think it makes sense to fight Stoke hardest, especially for me, since it's just down the road from me.
Incidentally, I'm not standing in the County election in May after all as various personal priorities have had to take preecedence this time.
I am on the Labour double. As a Lib Dem I would happily tactically vote for each of the Labour candidates. In particular @GillTroughton is the sort of Leftie that I like, and it would be hard to put a cigarette paper between her and Tim Farron in terms of policy.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Who cares a jot , I am of the "there are only men and women" all the rest is just flim flam.
What time this evening are we expecting Corbyn's latest appointees to either resign or be declared to be the favourite to replace him?
Long Bailey is 3rd favourite on Betfair at 10.5/12.5.
I'm trying to trade both sides, but ultimately keeping her ahead of 'someone else' who has been a consistently great dark horse in this contest thus far.
It's a false market, I'm at -23 against a book value of +100 (mostly +160 except for Lewis). I sort of see a route as the insiders' option but any leadership wrangling looks premature.
One penny pieces aren't legal tender above 20 pence, even in the UK.
Surely EU law rather than UK would apply. Anyone know the equivalent EU law?
I would have been concerned at the unessecary Co2 expenditure during the flights. Surely a few large dry bulk carriers and some barges would allow surface transport.
Quite possibly the scrap value of the coins would exceed the monetary value!
Going to Stoke myself tomorrow (short train ride from Nottingham). I think it's the more important of the two in any case - a loss to the Tories would be embarrassing but essentially a one-day wonder linked to the nuclear power issue, but a loss to UKIP would be a serious nuisance (which is why the Tories aren't really bothering in Stoke).
That's like choosing between catastrophe and armageddon. How did it come to that?
Sure, naturally we hope to hold both comfortably. But I think it makes sense to fight Stoke hardest, especially for me, since it's just down the road from me.
Incidentally, I'm not standing in the County election in May after all as various personal priorities have had to take preecedence this time.
That's a shame, I was looking forward to the doorstep reports.
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Ummm... no. We would need 7,600 aircraft for £60bn in pennies (assuming we use the 747 cargo option with the 278kg payload). The aircraft would cost about £1.5tn - about 25 times the debt.
Yeah, but at the end of which, we'd own a MASSIVE FLEET OF 747s!
Which then brings us to the next big problem - where do we park them? There are already more aircraft in the world than places to park them. The aviation industry needs them to be in the air unless we dramatically expand airport capacity.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Who cares a jot , I am of the "there are only men and women" all the rest is just flim flam.
And which of the two are you?
Clue , I am not a woman
You can't say that, it's a completely unacceptable bit of binary patriarchalism. You mean:"I do not currently choose to self-identify as a woman".
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Who cares a jot , I am of the "there are only men and women" all the rest is just flim flam.
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
This gives US leverage. We can just walk away. We will survive. We are Britain. They are a bunch of semi-evolved Fascists and frog eating barbarians.
It is utter cr*p. The UK has been a net contributor to EU budgets in every one of our 44 years of membership. Yet somehow, if we walk away, we owe them money?
It reminds me of the sort of articles that the Daily Mail used to run regularly over a decade ago, arguing that UK local government was somehow bankrupt because council borrowing collectively amounted to many multiples of billions. It was utterly specious, because it ignored the assets on the same balance sheets that were some two or three times those liabilities. A bit like arguing that someone owning a £250k house was bankrupt because they had a £100k mortgage.
No doubt the Eurocrats are coming up with similarly specious arguments, looking at the liabilities side of the balance sheet while ignoring the assets.
As for the argument that the UK somehow is responsible for EU pension liabilities, more fool the EU for choosing to run an unfunded pension scheme, unlike those in the UK public sector which are generally backed by investments. One of the consequences of unfunded pension schemes is that you carry big risks if your future sources of income dry up. The EU chose to run that risk and they must live with the consequences.
The further good news is that we can indeed walk away, secure in the knowledge that the EU doesn't have any tanks and that the EU vehicle manufacturers will be more concerned to strike a deal to preserve some of their UK export markets than to convert capacity to massively expand production of armoured fighting vehicles for use against the UK.
One penny pieces aren't legal tender above 20 pence, even in the UK.
Surely EU law rather than UK would apply. Anyone know the equivalent EU law?
I would have been concerned at the unessecary Co2 expenditure during the flights. Surely a few large dry bulk carriers and some barges would allow surface transport.
Quite possibly the scrap value of the coins would exceed the monetary value!
It's Article 11 of Regulation 974/98, and the answer is you're not obliged to accept payment involving more than 50 coins. There's an exception for issuing authorities and persons designated by member states, but I think that's basically mints and not for payment of a debt to the EU or sovereign states.
In any event, it would probably be a negotiated deal and that would probably (although need not) have a payment clause with the boring details of acceptable form of payment.
In the past, the scrap value of coins did exceed the face value at one time. But I don't believe that's the case now as metal prices are well off their peak.
It is utter cr*p. The UK has been a net contributor to EU budgets in every one of our 44 years of membership. Yet somehow, if we walk away, we owe them money?
Try divorcing your wife of 44 years and walking away without a settlement...
It is utter cr*p. The UK has been a net contributor to EU budgets in every one of our 44 years of membership. Yet somehow, if we walk away, we owe them money?
Try divorcing your wife of 44 years and walking away without a settlement...
Hopefully not the voice of bitter experience there Scott.
It is utter cr*p. The UK has been a net contributor to EU budgets in every one of our 44 years of membership. Yet somehow, if we walk away, we owe them money?
Try divorcing your wife of 44 years and walking away without a settlement...
Doesn't that rather depend who's the husband and who's the wife in that situation? Or, to put it in a less sexist way, who had the career and holds the assets, and who put their ambitions on hold to look after Bulgaria?
One penny pieces aren't legal tender above 20 pence, even in the UK.
Surely EU law rather than UK would apply. Anyone know the equivalent EU law?
I would have been concerned at the unessecary Co2 expenditure during the flights. Surely a few large dry bulk carriers and some barges would allow surface transport.
Quite possibly the scrap value of the coins would exceed the monetary value!
It's Article 11 of Regulation 974/98, and the answer is you're not obliged to accept payment involving more than 50 coins. There's an exception for issuing authorities and persons designated by member states, but I think that's basically mints and not for payment of a debt to the EU or sovereign states.
In any event, it would probably be a negotiated deal and that would probably (although need not) have a payment clause with the boring details of acceptable form of payment.
In the past, the scrap value of coins did exceed the face value at one time. But I don't believe that's the case now as metal prices are well off their peak.
1. Mention nothing at all about form of payment, and hope they forget about it. 2. Make entire payment in newly printed.one farthing notes.
One of the interesting things about this was that this 'gentleman' managed to get into Cambridge. I can understand Oxford admitting him, but Cambridge?
Seriously though, I did some silly things as a youth (and might still be making some). However I doubt I was ever so stupid as to do something quite as idiotic as that. To make matters worse, allowing it to be recorded and put online.
We really need to start educating young people (and seemingly even the already intelligent) that if you put anything on t'Internet, you're broadcasting it to the world. It ain't secret. (*)
(*) Unless you are very careful and use encryption. Which can be difficult to do, and relies on the person at the other end not to broadcast it unencrypted.
Do not ever rely on encryption. While most algorithms are solid, implementations are not, and key distribution less so.
It is utter cr*p. The UK has been a net contributor to EU budgets in every one of our 44 years of membership. Yet somehow, if we walk away, we owe them money?
Try divorcing your wife of 44 years and walking away without a settlement...
Doesn't that rather depend who's the husband and who's the wife in that situation? Or, to put it in a less sexist way, who had the career and holds the assets, and who put their ambitions on hold to look after Bulgaria?
Doesn't that rather depend who's the husband and who's the wife in that situation? Or, to put it in a less sexist way, who had the career and holds the assets, and who put their ambitions on hold to look after Bulgaria?
My bad. I should have said partner. A friend who had the more successful career than her husband recently divorced and she got totally screwed by him in the settlement.
One penny pieces aren't legal tender above 20 pence, even in the UK.
I thought legal tender doesn't mean what people thought it does? (It'a something do with acceptable settlement for a court ordered payment)
From the Royal Mint.
"Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation."
The further good news is that we can indeed walk away, secure in the knowledge that the EU doesn't have any tanks and that the EU vehicle manufacturers will be more concerned to strike a deal to preserve some of their UK export markets than to convert capacity to massively expand production of armoured fighting vehicles for use against the UK.
The "you and whose army?" line is rather naive. Clearly, and thankfully, that sort of thing isn't on the cards (although give it three generations).
What is at issue is whether it really is so obvious that Europe has more to lose from walking away without a deal than we do. Sure, we're one important market for some European exporters. But equally, our own exports compete with some European domestic production. Additionally, the consumer cost of lost trades resulting from tariffs will be spread across a huge number of European consumers, whereas the loses this side of the Channel will be focused on the much smaller population of the UK.
One of the interesting things about this was that this 'gentleman' managed to get into Cambridge. I can understand Oxford admitting him, but Cambridge?
Seriously though, I did some silly things as a youth (and might still be making some). However I doubt I was ever so stupid as to do something quite as idiotic as that. To make matters worse, allowing it to be recorded and put online.
We really need to start educating young people (and seemingly even the already intelligent) that if you put anything on t'Internet, you're broadcasting it to the world. It ain't secret. (*)
(*) Unless you are very careful and use encryption. Which can be difficult to do, and relies on the person at the other end not to broadcast it unencrypted.
Do not ever rely on encryption. While most algorithms are solid, implementations are not, and key distribution less so.
I've been involved with implementing a 128-bit SSL implementation. We did loads of testing, and even then we were aware that issues with the compiler might introduce flaws.
A certain Cheltenham-based organisation that I think you're aware of were very interested in our work, especially when we wanted to export it.
Security is *really* difficult, and even the best system can be broken by one idiot.
Speaking of such things, the PB Diplomacy game is at a critical juncture. Will the Russians crush all opposition? Can England survive? Will the Turks be crushed by their own Juggernaut?
I've been involved with implementing a 128-bit SSL implementation. We did loads of testing, and even then we were aware that issues with the compiler might introduce flaws.
A certain Cheltenham-based organisation that I think you're aware of were very interested in our work, especially when we wanted to export it.
Security is *really* difficult, and even the best system can be broken by one idiot.
I had a very interesting meeting with a couple of those gents where we explained to them why their wireless implementation manual couldn't work
I've been involved with implementing a 128-bit SSL implementation. We did loads of testing, and even then we were aware that issues with the compiler might introduce flaws.
A certain Cheltenham-based organisation that I think you're aware of were very interested in our work, especially when we wanted to export it.
Security is *really* difficult, and even the best system can be broken by one idiot.
I had a very interesting meeting with a couple of those gents where we explained to them why their wireless implementation manual couldn't work
The people writing policy are often not the same people who know how shit actually works. As the latter are rarer than hen's teeth (or rather, rarer than hen's teeth on HMG wages), they're often too busy to provide technical oversight.
This is a perennial problem. I quintupled my take home when I moved out. Others have done even better. Hence the occasional emission of bullshit from the great Cheltenham blowhole.
The further good news is that we can indeed walk away, secure in the knowledge that the EU doesn't have any tanks and that the EU vehicle manufacturers will be more concerned to strike a deal to preserve some of their UK export markets than to convert capacity to massively expand production of armoured fighting vehicles for use against the UK.
The "you and whose army?" line is rather naive. Clearly, and thankfully, that sort of thing isn't on the cards (although give it three generations).
What is at issue is whether it really is so obvious that Europe has more to lose from walking away without a deal than we do. Sure, we're one important market for some European exporters. But equally, our own exports compete with some European domestic production. Additionally, the consumer cost of lost trades resulting from tariffs will be spread across a huge number of European consumers, whereas the loses this side of the Channel will be focused on the much smaller population of the UK.
Why do we have to impose tariffs? As Trump is going to find out with his idiotic tariffs on Mexico, the people who end up paying are the consumers and the levels of tariffs the EU will be allowed to impose under WTO rules are at a level that they are extremely unlikely to have much effect on demand. They are simply an additional tax on the consumer within the country imposing the tariffs. If the UK has any sense it will not impose tariffs - and certainly not on anything that is going to be used for manufacturing here and so adds value.
The further good news is that we can indeed walk away, secure in the knowledge that the EU doesn't have any tanks and that the EU vehicle manufacturers will be more concerned to strike a deal to preserve some of their UK export markets than to convert capacity to massively expand production of armoured fighting vehicles for use against the UK.
The "you and whose army?" line is rather naive. Clearly, and thankfully, that sort of thing isn't on the cards (although give it three generations).
What is at issue is whether it really is so obvious that Europe has more to lose from walking away without a deal than we do. Sure, we're one important market for some European exporters. But equally, our own exports compete with some European domestic production. Additionally, the consumer cost of lost trades resulting from tariffs will be spread across a huge number of European consumers, whereas the loses this side of the Channel will be focused on the much smaller population of the UK.
Why do we have to impose tariffs? As Trump is going to find out with his idiotic tariffs on Mexico, the people who end up paying are the consumers and the levels of tariffs the EU will be allowed to impose under WTO rules are at a level that they are extremely unlikely to have much effect on demand. They are simply an additional tax on the consumer within the country imposing the tariffs. If the UK has any sense it will not impose tariffs - and certainly not on anything that is going to be used for manufacturing here and so adds value.
Hear, hear. (Sadly, I suspect we will end up with tariffs.)
One of the interesting things about this was that this 'gentleman' managed to get into Cambridge. I can understand Oxford admitting him, but Cambridge?
Seriously though, I did some silly things as a youth (and might still be making some). However I doubt I was ever so stupid as to do something quite as idiotic as that. To make matters worse, allowing it to be recorded and put online.
We really need to start educating young people (and seemingly even the already intelligent) that if you put anything on t'Internet, you're broadcasting it to the world. It ain't secret. (*)
(*) Unless you are very careful and use encryption. Which can be difficult to do, and relies on the person at the other end not to broadcast it unencrypted.
Do not ever rely on encryption. While most algorithms are solid, implementations are not, and key distribution less so.
I've been involved with implementing a 128-bit SSL implementation. We did loads of testing, and even then we were aware that issues with the compiler might introduce flaws.
A certain Cheltenham-based organisation that I think you're aware of were very interested in our work, especially when we wanted to export it.
Security is *really* difficult, and even the best system can be broken by one idiot.
You let compilers near your code??
I work out the opcodes my self. It's the only way to be sure.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Well, it depends how bad. A deal involving payment of £60bn would certainly be worse than no deal, so I'm not sure their over-egging of the pudding to such a laughable degree would be terribly clever, were they to mean it. However, I'm sure the UK government don't believe they mean it.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
This gives US leverage. We can just walk away. We will survive. We are Britain. They are a bunch of semi-evolved Fascists and frog eating barbarians.
The welchers are out on the streets
We should just offer to pay it in installments. Thirty quid a week....
Going to Stoke myself tomorrow (short train ride from Nottingham). I think it's the more important of the two in any case - a loss to the Tories would be embarrassing but essentially a one-day wonder linked to the nuclear power issue, but a loss to UKIP would be a serious nuisance (which is why the Tories aren't really bothering in Stoke).
That's like choosing between catastrophe and armageddon. How did it come to that?
If boundary changes don't go through I think Stoke would be much easier for Labour to win back at a subsequent election than Copeland.
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
I saw an international lawyer on this earlier this week, and he said "The UK has ongoing liabilities as regards pensions that it would not be able to rid itself of simply by leaving the EU. If we were to leave without an agreement, the EU would simply sue us in the International Court of Justice, and they would win."
What are they gonna do? Nuke West Hampstead?
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Well, it depends how bad. A deal involving payment of £60bn would certainly be worse than no deal, so I'm not sure their over-egging of the pudding to such a laughable degree would be terribly clever, were they to mean it. However, I'm sure the UK government don't believe they mean it.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
This gives US leverage. We can just walk away. We will survive. We are Britain. They are a bunch of semi-evolved Fascists and frog eating barbarians.
The welchers are out on the streets
We should just offer to pay it in installments. Thirty quid a week....
One penny pieces aren't legal tender above 20 pence, even in the UK.
I thought legal tender doesn't mean what people thought it does? (It'a something do with acceptable settlement for a court ordered payment)
From the Royal Mint.
"Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation."
With respect to the Royal Mint, that is wrong. It may be that the court could insist that payments to it in be in legal tender, though in practice I have only ever known it done by solicitor's client account cheque. The point is that you cannot say "I offered payment and it was rejected so here I am making a payment into court" unless the offer you claim to have made was an offer of legal tender.
Comments
I'm trying to trade both sides, but ultimately keeping her ahead of 'someone else' who has been a consistently great dark horse in this contest thus far.
"Going to Stoke myself tomorrow (short train ride from Nottingham). I think it's the more important of the two in any case."
Surely Jezza waving Brexit through will save the seat? A fair swap.
Incidentally, I'm not standing in the County election in May after all as various personal priorities have had to take preecedence this time.
AIrbus, not so much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn6OEllCn_Q
Think that was a few months ago.
Or at least that was true when I were a lad workin down t' law school.
http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines
In the context of a fantasy about chartering planes to carry one penny pieces to Brussels to settle an adjudicated debt, it seemed a relevant point.
I would have been concerned at the unessecary Co2 expenditure during the flights. Surely a few large dry bulk carriers and some barges would allow surface transport.
Quite possibly the scrap value of the coins would exceed the monetary value!
It is utter cr*p. The UK has been a net contributor to EU budgets in every one of our 44 years of membership. Yet somehow, if we walk away, we owe them money?
It reminds me of the sort of articles that the Daily Mail used to run regularly over a decade ago, arguing that UK local government was somehow bankrupt because council borrowing collectively amounted to many multiples of billions. It was utterly specious, because it ignored the assets on the same balance sheets that were some two or three times those liabilities. A bit like arguing that someone owning a £250k house was bankrupt because they had a £100k mortgage.
No doubt the Eurocrats are coming up with similarly specious arguments, looking at the liabilities side of the balance sheet while ignoring the assets.
As for the argument that the UK somehow is responsible for EU pension liabilities, more fool the EU for choosing to run an unfunded pension scheme, unlike those in the UK public sector which are generally backed by investments. One of the consequences of unfunded pension schemes is that you carry big risks if your future sources of income dry up. The EU chose to run that risk and they must live with the consequences.
The further good news is that we can indeed walk away, secure in the knowledge that the EU doesn't have any tanks and that the EU vehicle manufacturers will be more concerned to strike a deal to preserve some of their UK export markets than to convert capacity to massively expand production of armoured fighting vehicles for use against the UK.
In any event, it would probably be a negotiated deal and that would probably (although need not) have a payment clause with the boring details of acceptable form of payment.
In the past, the scrap value of coins did exceed the face value at one time. But I don't believe that's the case now as metal prices are well off their peak.
2. Make entire payment in newly printed.one farthing notes.
"Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/10/british-officials-drop-plans-donald-trump-address-parliament-queen-elizabeth?CMP=share_btn_fb
What is at issue is whether it really is so obvious that Europe has more to lose from walking away without a deal than we do. Sure, we're one important market for some European exporters. But equally, our own exports compete with some European domestic production. Additionally, the consumer cost of lost trades resulting from tariffs will be spread across a huge number of European consumers, whereas the loses this side of the Channel will be focused on the much smaller population of the UK.
A certain Cheltenham-based organisation that I think you're aware of were very interested in our work, especially when we wanted to export it.
Security is *really* difficult, and even the best system can be broken by one idiot.
https://blog.qualys.com/securitylabs/2016/03/04/ssl-labs-drown-test-implementation-details
If you have servers that share a wildcard SSL cert, if one of them is vulnerable you can then compromise all the others...
This is a perennial problem. I quintupled my take home when I moved out. Others have done even better. Hence the occasional emission of bullshit from the great Cheltenham blowhole.
I work out the opcodes my self. It's the only way to be sure.