There is far more "Trumpism" spouted on here than by the "Big Dog" himself. Given the ignorance of reality of the UK mainland it is no surprise it is even worse North of Watford.
Ah, but which Watford - Hertfordshire or Northamptonshire ? ..
You mean there are two of them, hoist by my own petard
No they haven't. That is just your weird monomania coming to the fore again. The only organisation that will be pushing for a hard border on the island of Ireland or within the British Isles will be the EU. Since they are the problem I suggest you look to them for the solution.
Surely what will happen is that Ireland and the UK will tell the EU that we have created a hard border, but it will be awfully run and entirely ineffective, and we will assure the EU that we will get around to fixing it ASAP.
How do you prevent the cut-price cigarettes and booze that come into the UK via the Irish Republic ending up on the mainland?
We don't? As far as I am aware nobody has trouble smuggling such stuff today.
We will have to. If current EU levels of import "for personal consumption" continue between the RoI and NI, while we leave the customs union and single market and return to much stricter personal limits for imports to Britain from the EU (as are imposed for the RoW), then at some location there will have to be a hard border or it will substantially undermine retailers on the mainland.
Why would we return to stricter limits? Again you are making assumptions and predictions that have no basis in fact.
No, I am listening to people who tell me that leaving the EU means leaving the customs union and the single market.
And why does that imply additional duties or tariffs imposed by the UK government? It may well imply lower duties and tariffs from our side.
It may do - but then what is this argument about them needing us more than we need them? If we are not going to impose tariffs that does not come into play, does it?
Not argument.
Eh? Aren't the Germans supposed to be worried about us imposing tariffs on them?
No idea. It is not an argument I have used since I think tariffs are completely counter productive. You may have noticed it is something OGH Junior and I get quite exercised about along with freedom of movement.
I think you'll find that a big part of the case made by the Leave campaign was precisely that we would get a good trade deal from the EU because if there was not one we would impose tariffs and they need us more than we need them.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
The terms Britain and British have existed for much longer than the political entity.
You'll find very little reference to "British" as an subjugating force before James VI subjugated the English throne in 1603 or indeed from 1317 as you inferred.
But that does not mean that the Irish were not subjugated by people from Britain.
Stop digging. Your original statement was a simple error of fact. Accept it and move on.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
There is far more "Trumpism" spouted on here than by the "Big Dog" himself. Given the ignorance of reality of the UK mainland it is no surprise it is even worse North of Watford.
What is "ignorance of reality of the UK mainland" ?
It is thick twats who know little beyond what they can see within eyesight, spouting bollox about distant parts of the UK that most of them would struggle to point out on a map never mind have visited or know anything about.
Oh you really shouldn't put yourself down like that Malcolm. I mean I understand it might bother you that you are a bit thick but I have never considered you a twat.
Good joke Richard, I am a mere genius and good to know I am not twattish.
NSFW - a PewDiePie fan isn't happy, he's bang on though IMO. Incidentally, Mr Pie now has a whopping 9.7m followers from nowhere on Twitter. A tiger's tail has been pulled.
Another point: High tariff item. What will stop the importer having it pass through Ireland into Northern Ireland ?
Other way around, surely? Traditionally Britain has always been very suspicious of tariffs, and it's unlikely we will impose high ones, or even be in a position to do so given the amount of external trading we will need to do after leaving the EU.
However, the EU has always had very high tariffs on a number of things, especially food, to protect its main customers and force the single market more firmly together.
Therefore, play silly buggers in the exit negotiations.
From the Republic's perspective, they face the prospect of much cheaper global imports being available in Northern Ireland if the UK starts abolishing EU style tariffs and quotas.
The Irish are riding the wrong horse.
The with us.
lol
I assume youve never read an Irish history
Yep - mainland.
Why? them.
The English have voted to create hard borders.
No they haven't. That is just your weird monomania coming to the fore again. The only organisation that will be pushing for a hard border on the island of Ireland or within the British Isles will be the EU. Since they are the problem I suggest you look to them for the solution.
Brexit means Brexit and that apparently means leaving the single market and the customs union. We can only do that with hard borders.
I seem to remember that being said.
If companies can freely import to the UK through Ireland without tariffs, then it would make a mockery of any British attempt to impose them in the absence of a Brexit agreement on trade with the EU. It would also be absolutely brilliant for the whole island of Ireland. Probably less brilliant for the island of Great Britain, though.
Bottle of Prosecco
Tesco Lisburn NI £7.00
Tesco Waterford RoI € 15.00
which way do you think trade will flow ?
I should imagine that the exchange rate between the £ and € will be the main determinant of the trade flow - as is the case now.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
And the plantations of the 16th and 17th century when settlers from the island of Britain were forcibly imposed on the Irish.
more myth
ALL the english plantations failed, even the Ulster one.
The NE of Ireland became british oamerican.
Whether they failed or not is pretty immaterial. They still happened. And last time I looked Scotland was in Britain. Totally agree about the Irish in North America.
in C10 settlers from Scandinavia were forcibly imposed on Ireland - and founded most of its major towns and cities - driving the Irish away, killing them and stealing their women.
should I hold a major grudge against Danes and consider them a bunch of bastards?
You and I both know that for most people in Ireland the role of the British in the country's history is not seen as benevolent.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
The terms Britain and British have existed for much longer than the political entity.
You'll find very little reference to "British" as an subjugating force before James VI subjugated the English throne in 1603 or indeed from 1317 as you inferred.
But that does not mean that the Irish were not subjugated by people from Britain.
Stop digging. Your original statement was a simple error of fact. Accept it and move on.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
The terms Britain and British have existed for much longer than the political entity.
You'll find very little reference to "British" as an subjugating force before James VI subjugated the English throne in 1603 or indeed from 1317 as you inferred.
But that does not mean that the Irish were not subjugated by people from Britain.
It rather assumes there's such a thing as the Irish, theyre as mongrel a nation as the british.
gaelic homogenous Ireland is largely a creation of late 19th Century nationalists.
NSFW - a PewDiePie fan isn't happy, he's bang on though IMO. Incidentally, Mr Pie now has a whopping 9.7m followers from nowhere on Twitter. A tiger's tail has been pulled.
No they haven't. That is just your weird monomania coming to the fore again. The only organisation that will be pushing for a hard border on the island of Ireland or within the British Isles will be the EU. Since they are the problem I suggest you look to them for the solution.
Surely what will happen is that Ireland and the UK will tell the EU that we have created a hard border, but it will be awfully run and entirely ineffective, and we will assure the EU that we will get around to fixing it ASAP.
How do you prevent the cut-price cigarettes and booze that come into the UK via the Irish Republic ending up on the mainland?
We don't? As far as I am aware nobody has trouble smuggling such stuff today.
We will have to. If current EU levels of import "for personal consumption" continue between the RoI and NI, while we leave the customs union and single market and return to much stricter personal limits for imports to Britain from the EU (as are imposed for the RoW), then at some location there will have to be a hard border or it will substantially undermine retailers on the mainland.
Why would we return to stricter limits? Again you are making assumptions and predictions that have no basis in fact.
No, I am listening to people who tell me that leaving the EU means leaving the customs union and the single market.
And why does that imply additional duties or tariffs imposed by the UK government? It may well imply lower duties and tariffs from our side.
It may do - but then what is this argument about them needing us more than we need them? If we are not going to impose tariffs that does not come into play, does it?
Not at all. That argument has been and gone as far as tariffs are concerned. It became redundant when we decided to leave. The levels of tariffs that might be imposed on our exports to the EU have already been far outweighed by the reduction in the value of the pound. We already won that argument.
Eh? Aren't the Germans supposed to be worried about us imposing tariffs on them?
Presumably the decline in £/€ has already impacted on the price of german imports.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
The terms Britain and British have existed for much longer than the political entity.
You'll find very little reference to "British" as an subjugating force before James VI subjugated the English throne in 1603 or indeed from 1317 as you inferred.
But that does not mean that the Irish were not subjugated by people from Britain.
Stop digging. Your original statement was a simple error of fact. Accept it and move on.
As Scotland faces the prospect of a second independence referendum, one of Britain’s foremost economic forecasters has claimed the country would suffer recession and Greek-style austerity cuts of about £19bn in the event of a “Scexit”. A new analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicts that the gap between what Scotland raises in taxes and spends on public services will rise to an “unsustainable” 9.4% of GDP in 2017-18.
This is more than three times that of the UK as a whole (3%), and reflects a collapse in North Sea oil revenues, down from $110 a barrel in 2014 to $56 on Friday. If Scotland were independent today Douglas McWilliams, the consultancy’s president, claims the deficit would be even higher — at 12% of GDP — as a result of additional costs of becoming a separate state.
LOL some partisan right wing Tory fannies spout utter guff, ok we better cancel that referendum then. Oil collapsed years ago and yet nothing happened to our GDP.
Professor John McLaren, an economist at Glasgow University, has described the latest Scottish GDP figures — totalling £158bn — as “grim” as it emerged that Scotland’s economy grew at about a third of the rate of the UK as a whole between July and September last year.
Some senior SNP figures privately accord with the CEBR’s deficit forecast, with one warning that it would be preferable to launch a new campaign for independence if the Scottish economy were growing by 4% a year in comparison with the most recent quarter of only 0.2%.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
And the plantations of the 16th and 17th century when settlers from the island of Britain were forcibly imposed on the Irish.
more myth
ALL the english plantations failed, even the Ulster one.
The NE of Ireland became british oamerican.
Whether they failed or not is pretty immaterial. They still happened. And last time I looked Scotland was in Britain. Totally agree about the Irish in North America.
in C10 settlers from Scandinavia were forcibly imposed on Ireland - and founded most of its major towns and cities - driving the Irish away, killing them and stealing their women.
should I hold a major grudge against Danes and consider them a bunch of bastards?
I thought that the Scandinavian settlers in Ireland could in many ways be equated with those in and around York at or about the same time.
What can reasonably be said is that the relationship between the British crown and Ireland was generally one of attempted subjugation of the latter by the former from about 1200 AD/CE onward.
Certainly England became more interested in its periphery over time, but then so did all large countries so it wasnt a unique event
In 1200 the crown was Anglo French and it was more interested in big slabs of rich french farmland than cold wet Ireland
By circa 1500 when France was gone and Ireland looked more interesting, most of the Irish nobility were mixed up anglo normans. The peasantry like elsewhere were too busy trying to stay alive to worry about who ruled them
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
The terms Britain and British have existed for much longer than the political entity.
You'll find very little reference to "British" as an subjugating force before James VI subjugated the English throne in 1603 or indeed from 1317 as you inferred.
But that does not mean that the Irish were not subjugated by people from Britain.
Stop digging. Your original statement was a simple error of fact. Accept it and move on.
And sneering at a superfan reconfirms that liberals think they're superior.
He's gold dust for Trump and the media have already sneered all over twitter about him. And I presume they'll try to ruin his life next.
It's so destructive and doesn't convert floating voters into Dems
Yep - I am one of those sneering liberals who thinks that keeping a six foot high model of Donald Trump in your house and saluting it every day is ever so slightly unhinged. You may be correct in believing that floating voters in the US will see it as being completely rational.
There is far more "Trumpism" spouted on here than by the "Big Dog" himself. Given the ignorance of reality of the UK mainland it is no surprise it is even worse North of Watford.
Ah, but which Watford - Hertfordshire or Northamptonshire ? ..
You mean there are two of them, hoist by my own petard
Indeed so. The latter is best known for its eponymous service station on the M1 - Watford Gap. The village itself is pleasing with a historic link to the Pilgrim Fathers.
NSFW - a PewDiePie fan isn't happy, he's bang on though IMO. Incidentally, Mr Pie now has a whopping 9.7m followers from nowhere on Twitter. A tiger's tail has been pulled.
Of course, all left thinkers are all perfectly sane.
Failing to understand why you lost and getting huffy about it seems to be a common theme.
If I was so spectacularly wrong, I'd be thinking Bugger, Need To Listen More. Alas no. Let's call them all stupid dupes and Nazis - that protects my ego and self image.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
Whether they failed or not is pretty immaterial. They still happened. And last time I looked Scotland was in Britain. Totally agree about the Irish in North America.
in C10 settlers from Scandinavia were forcibly imposed on Ireland - and founded most of its major towns and cities - driving the Irish away, killing them and stealing their women.
should I hold a major grudge against Danes and consider them a bunch of bastards?
I thought that the Scandinavian settlers in Ireland could in many ways be equated with those in and around York at or about the same time.
What can reasonably be said is that the relationship between the British crown and Ireland was generally one of attempted subjugation of the latter by the former from about 1200 AD/CE onward.
Certainly England became more interested in its periphery over time, but then so did all large countries so it wasnt a unique event
In 1200 the crown was Anglo French and it was more interested in big slabs of rich french farmland than cold wet Ireland
By circa 1500 when France was gone and Ireland looked more interesting, most of the Irish nobility were mixed up anglo normans. The peasantry like elsewhere were too busy trying to stay alive to worry about who ruled them
Didn’t stop Henry II invading in 1171, though and accepting the submission of the Irish ‘kings’. That was why, as you rightly point out, most of the nobility had more than a dash of Norman blood. The Fitz whoevers! It then all got mixed up religion of course, as the Irish nobility stayed Catholic which tended to upset QEI and her successors.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
And the plantations of the 16th and 17th century when settlers from the island of Britain were forcibly imposed on the Irish.
more myth
ALL the english plantations failed, even the Ulster one.
The NE of Ireland became british oamerican.
Whether they failed or not is pretty immaterial. They still happened. And last time I looked Scotland was in Britain. Totally agree about the Irish in North America.
in C10 settlers from Scandinavia were forcibly imposed on Ireland - and founded most of its major towns and cities - driving the Irish away, killing them and stealing their women.
should I hold a major grudge against Danes and consider them a bunch of bastards?
You and I both know that for most people in Ireland the role of the British in the country's history is not seen as benevolent.
of course
theres just the ltlle matter of how much of it is actually true and are the Irish blameless victims
imo its rather a muddy affair
the only significant issue for me is the famine which oddly no one ever wishes to discuss, but it is the seminal event imodern irish history, the rest of it is just toff one up manship
As Scotland faces the prospect of a second independence referendum, one of Britain’s foremost economic forecasters has claimed the country would suffer recession and Greek-style austerity cuts of about £19bn in the event of a “Scexit”. A new analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicts that the gap between what Scotland raises in taxes and spends on public services will rise to an “unsustainable” 9.4% of GDP in 2017-18.
This is more than three times that of the UK as a whole (3%), and reflects a collapse in North Sea oil revenues, down from $110 a barrel in 2014 to $56 on Friday. If Scotland were independent today Douglas McWilliams, the consultancy’s president, claims the deficit would be even higher — at 12% of GDP — as a result of additional costs of becoming a separate state.
LOL some partisan right wing Tory fannies spout utter guff, ok we better cancel that referendum then. Oil collapsed years ago and yet nothing happened to our GDP.
Professor John McLaren, an economist at Glasgow University, has described the latest Scottish GDP figures — totalling £158bn — as “grim” as it emerged that Scotland’s economy grew at about a third of the rate of the UK as a whole between July and September last year.
Some senior SNP figures privately accord with the CEBR’s deficit forecast, with one warning that it would be preferable to launch a new campaign for independence if the Scottish economy were growing by 4% a year in comparison with the most recent quarter of only 0.2%.
Great vote for rule from London there, all he is saying is that London is shafting us and we should be independent. Some vague bollox about some vague shadowy figures agreeing in secret says it all. Utter tripe, Lord Haw Haw would be proud of it.
"Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters are "urgently" transporting campaigners from across Britain to fight two crunch by-elections this week amid fears the party is on the brink of a historic defeat."
Mr. Brooke, worth noting that there were still English visits (ahem) to Ireland before that time. William Marshal had vast swathes of land around Pembroke, but also had a tasty slice of Ireland. I agree, though, that there was more interest in Normandy, Aquitaine etc than Ireland.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
The terms Britain and British have existed for much longer than the political entity.
You'll find very little reference to "British" as an subjugating force before James VI subjugated the English throne in 1603 or indeed from 1317 as you inferred.
But that does not mean that the Irish were not subjugated by people from Britain.
Stop digging. Your original statement was a simple error of fact. Accept it and move on.
Is hell about to freeze over?
Not if Trump's newly confirmed Environmental Protection Agency incumbent has his way !! ..
I like Gutfeld a lot - his shows are very funny and cutting for a GOP audience. Here's yesterday's - stick with it if you want to *get* the mood in the room.
NSFW - a PewDiePie fan isn't happy, he's bang on though IMO. Incidentally, Mr Pie now has a whopping 9.7m followers from nowhere on Twitter. A tiger's tail has been pulled.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
The terms Britain and British have existed for much longer than the political entity.
You'll find very little reference to "British" as an subjugating force before James VI subjugated the English throne in 1603 or indeed from 1317 as you inferred.
But that does not mean that the Irish were not subjugated by people from Britain.
Stop digging. Your original statement was a simple error of fact. Accept it and move on.
No, it was a statement of fact.
Just taken delivery of a JCB have you?
Translation - you know I am right.
Translation - you're watching too many Trump speeches.
As Scotland faces the prospect of a second independence referendum, one of Britain’s foremost economic forecasters has claimed the country would suffer recession and Greek-style austerity cuts of about £19bn in the event of a “Scexit”. A new analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicts that the gap between what Scotland raises in taxes and spends on public services will rise to an “unsustainable” 9.4% of GDP in 2017-18.
This is more than three times that of the UK as a whole (3%), and reflects a collapse in North Sea oil revenues, down from $110 a barrel in 2014 to $56 on Friday. If Scotland were independent today Douglas McWilliams, the consultancy’s president, claims the deficit would be even higher — at 12% of GDP — as a result of additional costs of becoming a separate state.
LOL some partisan right wing Tory fannies spout utter guff, ok we better cancel that referendum then. Oil collapsed years ago and yet nothing happened to our GDP.
Professor John McLaren, an economist at Glasgow University, has described the latest Scottish GDP figures — totalling £158bn — as “grim” as it emerged that Scotland’s economy grew at about a third of the rate of the UK as a whole between July and September last year.
Some senior SNP figures privately accord with the CEBR’s deficit forecast, with one warning that it would be preferable to launch a new campaign for independence if the Scottish economy were growing by 4% a year in comparison with the most recent quarter of only 0.2%.
Great vote for rule from London there.
Always someone else's fault, isn't it?
What Scotland needs is a strongly growing economy - a large part of that comes down to the skills and education of its workforce. That's been devolved for nigh on two decades and run by the SNP for nigh on one. How's that turning out?
Yep - I am one of those sneering liberals who thinks that keeping a six foot high model of Donald Trump in your house and saluting it every day is ever so slightly unhinged. You may be correct in believing that floating voters in the US will see it as being completely rational.
He "prays" over it every day. One hopes that's the only thing he does...
Mildly surprised there's not more mention of the potential customs union fudge.
We leave 'the' customs union and have 'a' customs union with the EU. We still negotiate our own deals with non-EU countries but are in a customs union with the EU so that goods etc can flow more easily.
I don't really understand how it can work... And it sounds complicated to agree.
If we still share with the EU a common external tariff on some products... Does that mean we need the EU to sign off on British trade deals with other countries? That doesn't sound workable.
Or does it mean that any trade deals we do in future will have to keep tariffs on certain products since that is part of the new EU / UK customs union?
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
Mr. Brooke, worth noting that there were still English visits (ahem) to Ireland before that time. William Marshal had vast swathes of land around Pembroke, but also had a tasty slice of Ireland. I agree, though, that there was more interest in Normandy, Aquitaine etc than Ireland.
I shall be in Marshall country this week, the Hook peninsula has one of Europe's oldest lighthouses and is near waterford, built by the earl to guide his ships
NSFW - a PewDiePie fan isn't happy, he's bang on though IMO. Incidentally, Mr Pie now has a whopping 9.7m followers from nowhere on Twitter. A tiger's tail has been pulled.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
As Scotland faces the prospect of a second independence referendum, one of Britain’s foremost economic forecasters has claimed the country would suffer recession and Greek-style austerity cuts of about £19bn in the event of a “Scexit”. A new analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicts that the gap between what Scotland raises in taxes and spends on public services will rise to an “unsustainable” 9.4% of GDP in 2017-18.
This is more than three times that of the UK as a whole (3%), and reflects a collapse in North Sea oil revenues, down from $110 a barrel in 2014 to $56 on Friday. If Scotland were independent today Douglas McWilliams, the consultancy’s president, claims the deficit would be even higher — at 12% of GDP — as a result of additional costs of becoming a separate state.
LOL some partisan right wing Tory fannies spout utter guff, ok we better cancel that referendum then. Oil collapsed years ago and yet nothing happened to our GDP.
Professor John McLaren, an economist at Glasgow University, has described the latest Scottish GDP figures — totalling £158bn — as “grim” as it emerged that Scotland’s economy grew at about a third of the rate of the UK as a whole between July and September last year.
Some senior SNP figures privately accord with the CEBR’s deficit forecast, with one warning that it would be preferable to launch a new campaign for independence if the Scottish economy were growing by 4% a year in comparison with the most recent quarter of only 0.2%.
Great vote for rule from London there.
Always someone else's fault, isn't it?
What Scotland needs is a strongly growing economy - a large part of that comes down to the skills and education of its workforce. That's been devolved for nigh on two decades and run by the SNP for nigh on one. How's that turning out?
it takes 13 years to educate a child from 5 to 18, so you'd have to say the jury is still out. Scottish education was a right mess before, right enough
Bit of a shame all Marshal's sons died so young and his estate was split between various husbands of his daughters. Top chap, he was.
Mr. rkrkrk, all stuff purely internal (ie UK+EU) happens as now. All stuff that's imported to one (UK or EU) externally and *then* goes to the other bit has to go through customs with more form-filling etc.
We get to do trade deals, disruption is minimised.
"Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters are "urgently" transporting campaigners from across Britain to fight two crunch by-elections this week amid fears the party is on the brink of a historic defeat."
Nah. One week there's stories they think they are losing, then the next they are confident and the Tories are struggling with their campaigning, now back the other way. Even tat their worse I cannot see them losing both.
Yep - I am one of those sneering liberals who thinks that keeping a six foot high model of Donald Trump in your house and saluting it every day is ever so slightly unhinged. You may be correct in believing that floating voters in the US will see it as being completely rational.
He "prays" over it every day. One hopes that's the only thing he does...
People pray in many different ways. Prostration, sacrifice, so many possibilities.
No idea if true or not... But whenever I hear someone say something is more than 100% true/guaranteed/certain.... Instinctively i have the opposite reaction and think it's probably not that certain....
As Scotland faces the prospect of a second independence referendum, one of Britain’s foremost economic forecasters has claimed the country would suffer recession and Greek-style austerity cuts of about £19bn in the event of a “Scexit”. A new analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicts that the gap between what Scotland raises in taxes and spends on public services will rise to an “unsustainable” 9.4% of GDP in 2017-18.
This is more than three times that of the UK as a whole (3%), and reflects a collapse in North Sea oil revenues, down from $110 a barrel in 2014 to $56 on Friday. If Scotland were independent today Douglas McWilliams, the consultancy’s president, claims the deficit would be even higher — at 12% of GDP — as a result of additional costs of becoming a separate state.
LOL some partisan right wing Tory fannies spout utter guff, ok we better cancel that referendum then. Oil collapsed years ago and yet nothing happened to our GDP.
Professor John McLaren, an economist at Glasgow University, has described the latest Scottish GDP figures — totalling £158bn — as “grim” as it emerged that Scotland’s economy grew at about a third of the rate of the UK as a whole between July and September last year.
Some senior SNP figures privately accord with the CEBR’s deficit forecast, with one warning that it would be preferable to launch a new campaign for independence if the Scottish economy were growing by 4% a year in comparison with the most recent quarter of only 0.2%.
Great vote for rule from London there.
Always someone else's fault, isn't it?
What Scotland needs is a strongly growing economy - a large part of that comes down to the skills and education of its workforce. That's been devolved for nigh on two decades and run by the SNP for nigh on one. How's that turning out?
it takes 13 years to educate a child from 5 to 18, so you'd have to say the jury is still out. Scottish education was a right mess before, right enough
How can the jury be out when its falling behind the rest of the UK?
And sneering at a superfan reconfirms that liberals think they're superior.
He's gold dust for Trump and the media have already sneered all over twitter about him. And I presume they'll try to ruin his life next.
It's so destructive and doesn't convert floating voters into Dems
Yep - I am one of those sneering liberals who thinks that keeping a six foot high model of Donald Trump in your house and saluting it every day is ever so slightly unhinged. You may be correct in believing that floating voters in the US will see it as being completely rational.
Oh look, an ethnic sneer from the left. And everyone knows that proper political statuary is made of granite and has pledges on it.
No idea if true or not... But whenever I hear someone say something is more than 100% true/guaranteed/certain.... Instinctively i have the opposite reaction and think it's probably not that certain....
Particularly with claims that go back many many decades and for which the accused is unable to defend themselves let alone be brought to trial, it might have been impolitic for him to say 120% genuine, to say the least. With such ancient claims, even the most compelling testimony surely puts things more in the 90% certain range?
And sneering at a superfan reconfirms that liberals think they're superior.
He's gold dust for Trump and the media have already sneered all over twitter about him. And I presume they'll try to ruin his life next.
It's so destructive and doesn't convert floating voters into Dems
Yep - I am one of those sneering liberals who thinks that keeping a six foot high model of Donald Trump in your house and saluting it every day is ever so slightly unhinged. You may be correct in believing that floating voters in the US will see it as being completely rational.
Oh look, an ethnic sneer from the left. And everyone knows that proper political statuary is made of granite and has pledges on it.
Vapid pledges, thank you very much, that's very important.
No idea if true or not... But whenever I hear someone say something is more than 100% true/guaranteed/certain.... Instinctively i have the opposite reaction and think it's probably not that certain....
Have to agree with that, it would be more believable if he had said "100%". Does make the claim seem more sensational than honest
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
Bit of a shame all Marshal's sons died so young and his estate was split between various husbands of his daughters. Top chap, he was.
Mr. rkrkrk, all stuff purely internal (ie UK+EU) happens as now. All stuff that's imported to one (UK or EU) externally and *then* goes to the other bit has to go through customs with more form-filling etc.
We get to do trade deals, disruption is minimised.
How do you tell the difference between the two groups of goods? Presumably anything from EU to UK (or vice versa) will need some kind of documentation proving it wasn't imported from outside?
Mr. kle4, I sacrifice goats to Apollo to ensure my writing is excellent. However, I've recently started also sacrificing goats to Athena, to improve sales.
Mr. rkrkrk, I am not a businessman but I'd guess there's at least a record of sale/receipt kept presently.
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty eh? It seems highly unfair that 12 years after his death and with no way of countering the allegations or defending himself Sir Edward can be publicly branded like this.
Is this chief constable in a fight to save his job?
No idea if true or not... But whenever I hear someone say something is more than 100% true/guaranteed/certain.... Instinctively i have the opposite reaction and think it's probably not that certain....
Particularly with claims that go back many many decades and for which the accused is unable to defend themselves let alone be brought to trial, it might have been impolitic for him to say 120% genuine, to say the least. With such ancient claims, even the most compelling testimony surely puts things more in the 90% certain range?
We saw all of this with the Lord McAlpine case. Rumours swirling around for years, investigations by journalists, and finally a terribly-researched program that exploded in the BBC's faces.
It turned out McAlpine was innocent. He suffered decades of rumour and nudge-nudge behind his back, and all because political rivals *liked* the idea that the rumours were true.
The really scary thing is that if McApline had died a year or two earlier, his name might never have been cleared.
It's a ridiculous statement by the Chief Constable, and one that discredits the investigation.
I have no idea if the accusations about Heath are correct or not. However on the basis of what we have seen before, Wiltshire Police's awful handling of the case, and this latest statement it feels more like a face-saving exercise than one designed to get to the truth. But I might be wrong.
Mr. kle4, I sacrifice goats to Apollo to ensure my writing is excellent. However, I've recently started also sacrificing goats to Athena, to improve sales.
Always smart to cover your bases. Through their blessing you may end up supping with Dionysus yet.
Mildly surprised there's not more mention of the potential customs union fudge.
We leave 'the' customs union and have 'a' customs union with the EU. We still negotiate our own deals with non-EU countries but are in a customs union with the EU so that goods etc can flow more easily.
I don't really understand how it can work... And it sounds complicated to agree.
If we still share with the EU a common external tariff on some products... Does that mean we need the EU to sign off on British trade deals with other countries? That doesn't sound workable.
Or does it mean that any trade deals we do in future will have to keep tariffs on certain products since that is part of the new EU / UK customs union?
Turkey has a customs union with the EU but still has control over its trade deals. On the other hand, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all in the single market but not in the customs union whilst Liechtenstein also has an opt out from the Freedom of Movement of people part.
No idea if true or not... But whenever I hear someone say something is more than 100% true/guaranteed/certain.... Instinctively i have the opposite reaction and think it's probably not that certain....
Particularly with claims that go back many many decades and for which the accused is unable to defend themselves let alone be brought to trial, it might have been impolitic for him to say 120% genuine, to say the least. With such ancient claims, even the most compelling testimony surely puts things more in the 90% certain range?
We saw all of this with the Lord McAlpine case. Rumours swirling around for years, investigations by journalists, and finally a terribly-researched program that exploded in the BBC's faces.
It turned out McAlpine was innocent. He suffered decades of rumour and nudge-nudge behind his back, and all because political rivals *liked* the idea that the rumours were true.
The really scary thing is that if McApline had died a year or two earlier, his name might never have been cleared.
It's a ridiculous statement by the Chief Constable, and one that discredits the investigation.
I have no idea if the accusations about Heath are correct or not. However on the basis of what we have seen before, Wiltshire Police's awful handling of the case, and this latest statement it feels more like a face-saving exercise than one designed to get to the truth. But I might be wrong.
Based on past behaviour and the need for vindication for the expense in an age of austerity, I am guessing the report will not say anything as explosive as '120% genuine' but will talk about a weight of compelling evidence that suggests it is highly probable the offenses occurred. But we shall see. Obviously I would prefer the report not be convincing, but we'll all keep an open mind.
No idea if true or not... But whenever I hear someone say something is more than 100% true/guaranteed/certain.... Instinctively i have the opposite reaction and think it's probably not that certain....
Particularly with claims that go back many many decades and for which the accused is unable to defend themselves let alone be brought to trial, it might have been impolitic for him to say 120% genuine, to say the least. With such ancient claims, even the most compelling testimony surely puts things more in the 90% certain range?
We saw all of this with the Lord McAlpine case. Rumours swirling around for years, investigations by journalists, and finally a terribly-researched program that exploded in the BBC's faces.
It turned out McAlpine was innocent. He suffered decades of rumour and nudge-nudge behind his back, and all because political rivals *liked* the idea that the rumours were true.
The really scary thing is that if McApline had died a year or two earlier, his name might never have been cleared.
It's a ridiculous statement by the Chief Constable, and one that discredits the investigation.
I have no idea if the accusations about Heath are correct or not. However on the basis of what we have seen before, Wiltshire Police's awful handling of the case, and this latest statement it feels more like a face-saving exercise than one designed to get to the truth. But I might be wrong.
SMT (Senior Management Team) in the police are legendary to the rank and file for their -
1) Stupidity 2) Inability to admit a mistake 3) Immense skill in finding a hole and investing in a drag line excavator.
"Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty eh? ..." Well, it is an inaccurate way of describing the rule that in criminal trials it is for the prosecution to prove its case, not for the defendant to disprove it. It therefore has no application here because we have no criminal case and no defendant. On the broader point, though, you are right: the knockdown fact in the case against Heath, as stated by the police, is that he owned a Rover. And anyone who says that something is "120% genuine" is a numpty.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty eh? It seems highly unfair that 12 years after his death and with no way of countering the allegations or defending himself Sir Edward can be publicly branded like this.
Is this chief constable in a fight to save his job?
NSFW - a PewDiePie fan isn't happy, he's bang on though IMO. Incidentally, Mr Pie now has a whopping 9.7m followers from nowhere on Twitter. A tiger's tail has been pulled.
Mr. kle4, I sacrifice goats to Apollo to ensure my writing is excellent. However, I've recently started also sacrificing goats to Athena, to improve sales.
Always smart to cover your bases. Through their blessing you may end up supping with Dionysus yet.
Mr. kle4, I sacrifice goats to Apollo to ensure my writing is excellent. However, I've recently started also sacrificing goats to Athena, to improve sales.
Always smart to cover your bases. Through their blessing you may end up supping with Dionysus yet.
As Scotland faces the prospect of a second independence referendum, one of Britain’s foremost economic forecasters has claimed the country would suffer recession and Greek-style austerity cuts of about £19bn in the event of a “Scexit”. A new analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicts that the gap between what Scotland raises in taxes and spends on public services will rise to an “unsustainable” 9.4% of GDP in 2017-18.
This is more than three times that of the UK as a whole (3%), and reflects a collapse in North Sea oil revenues, down from $110 a barrel in 2014 to $56 on Friday. If Scotland were independent today Douglas McWilliams, the consultancy’s president, claims the deficit would be even higher — at 12% of GDP — as a result of additional costs of becoming a separate state.
LOL some partisan right wing Tory fannies spout utter guff, ok we better cancel that referendum then. Oil collapsed years ago and yet nothing happened to our GDP.
Professor John McLaren, an economist at Glasgow University, has described the latest Scottish GDP figures — totalling £158bn — as “grim” as it emerged that Scotland’s economy grew at about a third of the rate of the UK as a whole between July and September last year.
Some senior SNP figures privately accord with the CEBR’s deficit forecast, with one warning that it would be preferable to launch a new campaign for independence if the Scottish economy were growing by 4% a year in comparison with the most recent quarter of only 0.2%.
Great vote for rule from London there.
Always someone else's fault, isn't it?
What Scotland needs is a strongly growing economy - a large part of that comes down to the skills and education of its workforce. That's been devolved for nigh on two decades and run by the SNP for nigh on one. How's that turning out?
London controls almopst every tax power and policy of Scotland. That the policies enacted for South East England do not suit Scotland dos not need a rocket scientist. That a Tory tax exile living in luxury in the Channel Isles thinks it is great is also not surprising. The SNP only have power to distribute some pocket money , over 90% of the powers, and all teh ones that can actually change anything , remain with Westminster. The UK is failing Scotland badly , that is a fact and pompous Tories trying to point the finger at Scotland is pathetic and even worse from a pretendy Scot.
As Scotland faces the prospect of a second independence referendum, one of Britain’s foremost economic forecasters has claimed the country would suffer recession and Greek-style austerity cuts of about £19bn in the event of a “Scexit”. A new analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicts that the gap between what Scotland raises in taxes and spends on public services will rise to an “unsustainable” 9.4% of GDP in 2017-18.
This is more than three times that of the UK as a whole (3%), and reflects a collapse in North Sea oil revenues, down from $110 a barrel in 2014 to $56 on Friday. If Scotland were independent today Douglas McWilliams, the consultancy’s president, claims the deficit would be even higher — at 12% of GDP — as a result of additional costs of becoming a separate state.
LOL some partisan right wing Tory fannies spout utter guff, ok we better cancel that referendum then. Oil collapsed years ago and yet nothing happened to our GDP.
Professor John McLaren, an economist at Glasgow University, has described the latest Scottish GDP figures — totalling £158bn — as “grim” as it emerged that Scotland’s economy grew at about a third of the rate of the UK as a whole between July and September last year.
Some senior SNP figures privately accord with the CEBR’s deficit forecast, with one warning that it would be preferable to launch a new campaign for independence if the Scottish economy were growing by 4% a year in comparison with the most recent quarter of only 0.2%.
Great vote for rule from London there.
Always someone else's fault, isn't it?
What Scotland needs is a strongly growing economy - a large part of that comes down to the skills and education of its workforce. That's been devolved for nigh on two decades and run by the SNP for nigh on one. How's that turning out?
it takes 13 years to educate a child from 5 to 18, so you'd have to say the jury is still out. Scottish education was a right mess before, right enough
How can the jury be out when its falling behind the rest of the UK?
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
NSFW - a PewDiePie fan isn't happy, he's bang on though IMO. Incidentally, Mr Pie now has a whopping 9.7m followers from nowhere on Twitter. A tiger's tail has been pulled.
Endlessly claiming Trump or Bannon is a white supremacist looks really daft - just a friendly observation.
Which is probably why I didn't. Though I can understand, given your current preferred material, that reading comprehension might not be your strongest suit
Is there actually any evidence involved in this Heath story?
Seems to be something to do with the fact that he owned a car in the 1970's and was pictured driving it a couple of times?
One of his staff said it would have been impossible for him to commit the alleged crimes because he was always with security and didn't have a car/couldn't drive. Turns out he did have a car, and drove it alone.
Doesn't really mean that he did anything wrong though, although if it were Paul Nuttall I think it would be enough for some
The Irish were subjugated by the British for 700 years. They were deprived of their land and their rights. They were starved from their country. And now they see the British causing them no end of trouble again. One thing is sure, though: they will take whatever is thrown at them as an alternative to getting back into bed with us.
As Great Britain did not exist until 1707 you first sentence might best be described as a phrase now banned on PB .... aka a "Trumpism".
Bit of a shame all Marshal's sons died so young and his estate was split between various husbands of his daughters. Top chap, he was.
Mr. rkrkrk, all stuff purely internal (ie UK+EU) happens as now. All stuff that's imported to one (UK or EU) externally and *then* goes to the other bit has to go through customs with more form-filling etc.
We get to do trade deals, disruption is minimised.
I'm sure we could honour the saviour of England with a el cid type movie mr morris ;-)
NSFW - a PewDiePie fan isn't happy, he's bang on though IMO. Incidentally, Mr Pie now has a whopping 9.7m followers from nowhere on Twitter. A tiger's tail has been pulled.
Of course, all left thinkers are all perfectly sane.
Failing to understand why you lost and getting huffy about it seems to be a common theme.
If I was so spectacularly wrong, I'd be thinking Bugger, Need To Listen More. Alas no. Let's call them all stupid dupes and Nazis - that protects my ego and self image.
NSFW - a PewDiePie fan isn't happy, he's bang on though IMO. Incidentally, Mr Pie now has a whopping 9.7m followers from nowhere on Twitter. A tiger's tail has been pulled.
Endlessly claiming Trump or Bannon is a white supremacist looks really daft - just a friendly observation.
Which is probably why I didn't. Though I can understand, given your current preferred material, that reading comprehension might not be your strongest suit
It's the same silly thinking re PewDiePie - I made the assumption that since you've grouped the whole not-liberal bunch together, it was fair comment.
I very much hope the report when it comes is not convincing, as if they are the troubling implications are mostrous.
Nevertheless, how does one even investigate 50 year old claims?
A statute of limitations need to be applied to crime. There is no way that a fair trial for the accuser or accused can be conducted after this amount of time
Reading yesterday's threads and seeing SeanT say that he wants white supremacy back.
Well, it never went away.
This isn't the first time on this site I've actively seen PBers advocate a white supremacy though....hmmm.....
If there has to be a global hegemon, and history indicates those are the times of greatest peace and prosperity, yes I would prefer it to be us. The Brits. Who would you prefer? The Mongols?
When has there been a "global hegemon"?
Rome, Britain, America, and, soon, China. So far.
I preferred it when it was Britain. Failing that, Rome was next, then America. China, hmm. No human rights record, but not prone to droning either.
Britain was never a global hegemon. At Britain's peak, the USA, Prussia/Germany, France, Russia, and Austria-Hungary were also great powers. And though Britain had the Indian army giving it a lot clout on land, it was still primarily a naval power, whereas others were great land powers. The fact that we were never a global hegemon, and never really challenged for global hegemony probably accounts for the relative mildness of Britain's time as the leading power in the world. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
William Hill are doing a nice offer whereby if the player you have bet on to score first, last or anytime is subbed, your bet will run onto the teammate who has replaced him at the original price.
Harry Kane 21/20 vs Fulham is worth a dabble, anytime goalscorer
I very much hope the report when it comes is not convincing, as if they are the troubling implications are mostrous.
Nevertheless, how does one even investigate 50 year old claims?
A statute of limitations need to be applied to crime. There is no way that a fair trial for the accuser or accused can be conducted after this amount of time
Reading yesterday's threads and seeing SeanT say that he wants white supremacy back.
Well, it never went away.
This isn't the first time on this site I've actively seen PBers advocate a white supremacy though....hmmm.....
If there has to be a global hegemon, and history indicates those are the times of greatest peace and prosperity, yes I would prefer it to be us. The Brits. Who would you prefer? The Mongols?
When has there been a "global hegemon"?
Rome, Britain, America, and, soon, China. So far.
I preferred it when it was Britain. Failing that, Rome was next, then America. China, hmm. No human rights record, but not prone to droning either.
Britain was never a global hegemon. At Britain's peak, the USA, Prussia/Germany, France, Russia, and Austria-Hungary were also great powers. And though Britain had the Indian army giving it a lot clout on land, it was still primarily a naval power, whereas others were great land powers. The fact that we were never a global hegemon, and never really challenged for global hegemony probably accounts for the relative mildness of Britain's time as the leading power in the world. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Except that Britain used its undoubted naval supremacy to abolish the slave trade and enable freedom of the seas, so in that respect we didn't do too badly.
I'll defend SO on this one. People from the island of Britain (even if they would not have identified as "British") have been suppressing people on the island of Ireland for a long old time.
Even the Scots had a go (I'm talking medieval, not the plantations) and they seem to have been just as good at the brutality as the English were.
But then, as others have said, the Scandinavians had their effect as well. This was a time when you were either conquering or getting conquered and quite often both at the same time - and the internal politics of Ireland involved various entities out to brutalise one another, which had the inevitable side effect of drawing other parties to the party.
Where SO is spot-on is that there is no serious appetite in the Republic for a reunion with the UK, and the economic consequences of Brexit are not going to change that, whatever the more fervent Brexiteers might think. Not the vast majority, but you get the odd one who thinks Britain's withdrawal from the EU not only makes Irexit more likely, but even a state reunion. The most bizarre place I've seen this prospect extolled was in an essay by Niall Ferguson - he may be a world-famous historian and I may be a nobody, but seriously, what a ****.
Reading yesterday's threads and seeing SeanT say that he wants white supremacy back.
Well, it never went away.
This isn't the first time on this site I've actively seen PBers advocate a white supremacy though....hmmm.....
If there has to be a global hegemon, and history indicates those are the times of greatest peace and prosperity, yes I would prefer it to be us. The Brits. Who would you prefer? The Mongols?
When has there been a "global hegemon"?
Rome, Britain, America, and, soon, China. So far.
I preferred it when it was Britain. Failing that, Rome was next, then America. China, hmm. No human rights record, but not prone to droning either.
Britain was never a global hegemon. At Britain's peak, the USA, Prussia/Germany, France, Russia, and Austria-Hungary were also great powers. And though Britain had the Indian army giving it a lot clout on land, it was still primarily a naval power, whereas others were great land powers. The fact that we were never a global hegemon, and never really challenged for global hegemony probably accounts for the relative mildness of Britain's time as the leading power in the world. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Except that Britain used its undoubted naval supremacy to abolish the slave trade and enable freedom of the seas, so in that respect we didn't do too badly.
Yes. As I said, we were relatively benign and even in some ways positive. As Spanish philosopher Jorge Santayana (me neither) said:
'Never since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master. It will be a black day for the human race when scientific blackguards, conspirators, churls, and fanatics manage to supplant him.'
But of course there was a vast amount of venal exploitation to set against any benefits.
I very much hope the report when it comes is not convincing, as if they are the troubling implications are mostrous.
Nevertheless, how does one even investigate 50 year old claims?
A statute of limitations need to be applied to crime. There is no way that a fair trial for the accuser or accused can be conducted after this amount of time
I don't really agree with that for the simple reason that evidence can sometimes be hidden for decades.It took 30 years or so for the evidence re- Saville and Cyril Smith to reach the public domain. However, I am strongly disinclined to believe the stories relating to Heath - and sincerely hope I am correct.
Mildly surprised there's not more mention of the potential customs union fudge.
We leave 'the' customs union and have 'a' customs union with the EU. We still negotiate our own deals with non-EU countries but are in a customs union with the EU so that goods etc can flow more easily.
I don't really understand how it can work... And it sounds complicated to agree.
If we still share with the EU a common external tariff on some products... Does that mean we need the EU to sign off on British trade deals with other countries? That doesn't sound workable.
Or does it mean that any trade deals we do in future will have to keep tariffs on certain products since that is part of the new EU / UK customs union?
Turkey has a customs union with the EU but still has control over its trade deals. On the other hand, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all in the single market but not in the customs union whilst Liechtenstein also has an opt out from the Freedom of Movement of people part.
"A" customs union would probably require us to agree to use the same WTO tariff schedule as the EU, which is probably the simplest near term option, and which would be best for manufacturing sectors with very international supply chains.
I'll defend SO on this one. People from the island of Britain (even if they would not have identified as "British") have been suppressing people on the island of Ireland for a long old time.
Even the Scots had a go (I'm talking medieval, not the plantations) and they seem to have been just as good at the brutality as the English were.
But then, as others have said, the Scandinavians had their effect as well. This was a time when you were either conquering or getting conquered and quite often both at the same time - and the internal politics of Ireland involved various entities out to brutalise one another, which had the inevitable side effect of drawing other parties to the party.
Where SO is spot-on is that there is no serious appetite in the Republic for a reunion with the UK, and the economic consequences of Brexit are not going to change that, whatever the more fervent Brexiteers might think. Not the vast majority, but you get the odd one who thinks Britain's withdrawal from the EU not only makes Irexit more likely, but even a state reunion. The most bizarre place I've seen this prospect extolled was in an essay by Niall Ferguson - he may be a world-famous historian and I may be a nobody, but seriously, what a ****.
There do not appear to have been any rumours as to how the postal votes are looking at the two by elections.
A few posters on here were speculating that Labour would win Stoke by 10% and Copeland too close to call. The Tories at head office seem to agree, but their data is patchy, and therefore postal votes low-ish. I do think that is the best guess. If I had a flutter it would be 2 Labour holds. Tory win in Copeland on betting market not value and not likely.
Reading yesterday's threads and seeing SeanT say that he wants white supremacy back.
Well, it never went away.
This isn't the first time on this site I've actively seen PBers advocate a white supremacy though....hmmm.....
If there has to be a global hegemon, and history indicates those are the times of greatest peace and prosperity, yes I would prefer it to be us. The Brits. Who would you prefer? The Mongols?
Well yeah, the peace and prosperity was great - for white people. As the granddaughter of Jamaican immigrants on my mother's side, I do not pine for Jamacia to be recolonised. I do not exclusively associate success and prosperity with whiteness. As a mixed kid, it would be odd too.
Reading yesterday's threads and seeing SeanT say that he wants white supremacy back.
Well, it never went away.
This isn't the first time on this site I've actively seen PBers advocate a white supremacy though....hmmm.....
If there has to be a global hegemon, and history indicates those are the times of greatest peace and prosperity, yes I would prefer it to be us. The Brits. Who would you prefer? The Mongols?
Well yeah, the peace and prosperity was great - for white people. As the granddaughter of Jamaican immigrants on my mother's side, I do not pine for Jamacia to be recolonised. I do not exclusively associate success and prosperity with whiteness. As a mixed kid, it would be odd too.
Reading yesterday's threads and seeing SeanT say that he wants white supremacy back.
Well, it never went away.
This isn't the first time on this site I've actively seen PBers advocate a white supremacy though....hmmm.....
If there has to be a global hegemon, and history indicates those are the times of greatest peace and prosperity, yes I would prefer it to be us. The Brits. Who would you prefer? The Mongols?
Well yeah, the peace and prosperity was great - for white people. As the granddaughter of Jamaican immigrants on my mother's side, I do not pine for Jamacia to be recolonised. I do not exclusively associate success and prosperity with whiteness. As a mixed kid, it would be odd too.
As Scotland faces the prospect of a second independence referendum, one of Britain’s foremost economic forecasters has claimed the country would suffer recession and Greek-style austerity cuts of about £19bn in the event of a “Scexit”. A new analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicts that the gap between what Scotland raises in taxes and spends on public services will rise to an “unsustainable” 9.4% of GDP in 2017-18.
This is more than three times that of the UK as a whole (3%), and reflects a collapse in North Sea oil revenues, down from $110 a barrel in 2014 to $56 on Friday. If Scotland were independent today Douglas McWilliams, the consultancy’s president, claims the deficit would be even higher — at 12% of GDP — as a result of additional costs of becoming a separate state.
Great vote for rule from London there.
Always someone else's fault, isn't it?
What Scotland needs is a strongly growing economy - a large part of that comes down to the skills and education of its workforce. That's been devolved for nigh on two decades and run by the SNP for nigh on one. How's that turning out?
London controls almopst every tax power and policy of Scotland. That the policies enacted for South East England do not suit Scotland dos not need a rocket scientist. That a Tory tax exile living in luxury in the Channel Isles thinks it is great is also not surprising. The SNP only have power to distribute some pocket money , over 90% of the powers, and all teh ones that can actually change anything , remain with Westminster. The UK is failing Scotland badly , that is a fact and pompous Tories trying to point the finger at Scotland is pathetic and even worse from a pretendy Scot.
Time the English had a Sindy. We should get a say in this divorce proceedings. We'd agree to split I think...hope
Comments
Look, if it stood for Cole Era, I'd forgive you. As it is, cooler, six weeks.
*666*4
W46114
He's gold dust for Trump and the media have already sneered all over twitter about him. And I presume they'll try to ruin his life next.
It's so destructive and doesn't convert floating voters into Dems
Some senior SNP figures privately accord with the CEBR’s deficit forecast, with one warning that it would be preferable to launch a new campaign for independence if the Scottish economy were growing by 4% a year in comparison with the most recent quarter of only 0.2%.
In 1200 the crown was Anglo French and it was more interested in big slabs of rich french farmland than cold wet Ireland
By circa 1500 when France was gone and Ireland looked more interesting, most of the Irish nobility were mixed up anglo normans. The peasantry like elsewhere were too busy trying to stay alive to worry about who ruled them
If I was so spectacularly wrong, I'd be thinking Bugger, Need To Listen More. Alas no. Let's call them all stupid dupes and Nazis - that protects my ego and self image.
Ho hum
It then all got mixed up religion of course, as the Irish nobility stayed Catholic which tended to upset QEI and her successors.
theres just the ltlle matter of how much of it is actually true and are the Irish blameless victims
imo its rather a muddy affair
the only significant issue for me is the famine which oddly no one ever wishes to discuss, but it is the seminal event imodern irish history, the rest of it is just toff one up manship
"Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters are "urgently" transporting campaigners from across Britain to fight two crunch by-elections this week amid fears the party is on the brink of a historic defeat."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/18/momentum-organising-carpools-london-phone-banks-urgent-drive/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dn1W0RhFmY
What Scotland needs is a strongly growing economy - a large part of that comes down to the skills and education of its workforce. That's been devolved for nigh on two decades and run by the SNP for nigh on one. How's that turning out?
If we still share with the EU a common external tariff on some products... Does that mean we need the EU to sign off on British trade deals with other countries? That doesn't sound workable.
Or does it mean that any trade deals we do in future will have to keep tariffs on certain products since that is part of the new EU / UK customs union?
It is of course accurate that various monarchs and their armies have invaded and raided Ireland from the Viking period.
I was noting that SO's assertion that Britain had subjugated the Irish for 700 years as historically inaccurate as indeed it is without qualification.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/19/claims-sir-edward-heath-paedophile-120-per-cent-genuine-police/
Gaelic social structures werent exactly benign
Bit of a shame all Marshal's sons died so young and his estate was split between various husbands of his daughters. Top chap, he was.
Mr. rkrkrk, all stuff purely internal (ie UK+EU) happens as now. All stuff that's imported to one (UK or EU) externally and *then* goes to the other bit has to go through customs with more form-filling etc.
We get to do trade deals, disruption is minimised.
Nevertheless, how does one even investigate 50 year old claims?
Presumably anything from EU to UK (or vice versa) will need some kind of documentation proving it wasn't imported from outside?
Mr. rkrkrk, I am not a businessman but I'd guess there's at least a record of sale/receipt kept presently.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty eh? It seems highly unfair that 12 years after his death and with no way of countering the allegations or defending himself Sir Edward can be publicly branded like this.
Is this chief constable in a fight to save his job?
It turned out McAlpine was innocent. He suffered decades of rumour and nudge-nudge behind his back, and all because political rivals *liked* the idea that the rumours were true.
The really scary thing is that if McApline had died a year or two earlier, his name might never have been cleared.
It's a ridiculous statement by the Chief Constable, and one that discredits the investigation.
I have no idea if the accusations about Heath are correct or not. However on the basis of what we have seen before, Wiltshire Police's awful handling of the case, and this latest statement it feels more like a face-saving exercise than one designed to get to the truth. But I might be wrong.
Anyway, I'm off for a bit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11807769
1) Stupidity
2) Inability to admit a mistake
3) Immense skill in finding a hole and investing in a drag line excavator.
Well, it is an inaccurate way of describing the rule that in criminal trials it is for the prosecution to prove its case, not for the defendant to disprove it. It therefore has no application here because we have no criminal case and no defendant. On the broader point, though, you are right: the knockdown fact in the case against Heath, as stated by the police, is that he owned a Rover. And anyone who says that something is "120% genuine" is a numpty.
edit: quoting fecked again.
Is this chief constable in a fight to save his job?
He has nailed his trousers to the masthead.
Though I can understand, given your current preferred material, that reading comprehension might not be your strongest suit
Doesn't really mean that he did anything wrong though, although if it were Paul Nuttall I think it would be enough for some
May I suggest you apply for "Strictly Come Dancing" along with your pin head?
If I was so spectacularly wrong, I'd be thinking Bugger, Need To Listen More. Alas no. Let's call them all stupid dupes and Nazis - that protects my ego and self image.
Ho hum It's the same silly thinking re PewDiePie - I made the assumption that since you've grouped the whole not-liberal bunch together, it was fair comment.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/833304895377780736
Harry Kane 21/20 vs Fulham is worth a dabble, anytime goalscorer
4/1 First Goalscorer is ok too
I'll get my coat.
Even the Scots had a go (I'm talking medieval, not the plantations) and they seem to have been just as good at the brutality as the English were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Faughart
But then, as others have said, the Scandinavians had their effect as well. This was a time when you were either conquering or getting conquered and quite often both at the same time - and the internal politics of Ireland involved various entities out to brutalise one another, which had the inevitable side effect of drawing other parties to the party.
Where SO is spot-on is that there is no serious appetite in the Republic for a reunion with the UK, and the economic consequences of Brexit are not going to change that, whatever the more fervent Brexiteers might think. Not the vast majority, but you get the odd one who thinks Britain's withdrawal from the EU not only makes Irexit more likely, but even a state reunion. The most bizarre place I've seen this prospect extolled was in an essay by Niall Ferguson - he may be a world-famous historian and I may be a nobody, but seriously, what a ****.
'Never since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master. It will be a black day for the human race when scientific blackguards, conspirators, churls, and fanatics manage to supplant him.'
But of course there was a vast amount of venal exploitation to set against any benefits.
However, I am strongly disinclined to believe the stories relating to Heath - and sincerely hope I am correct.
NEW THREAD
Mixed race teenage girl; my arse.
He's a lorry driver from Grimsby on an epic troll.
And your the one questioning my validity when YOU'RE the weirdo googling whether Michelle Obama is a man?
The nerve....