You realise, of course, that Mark Price was Minister of State for Trade Policy until last month. And that he claims that, on behalf of the government, he visited these 60 countries who have agreed to roll over the current deal and are working through the details.
Does that realisation:
a) Fill you with confidence that Liam Fox's department is on top of things and fully grounded in reality, or b) Fill you with horror that Liam Fox's department is wholly divorced from reality and believes that warm words are sufficient?
To make one obvious point, how on earth should anyone believe that 60-odd countries are currently 'working through the details' when even our own government has no idea what will happen and regards 'no deal' merely as a negotiating position?
To provide the blindingly obvious answer, the details of a trade agreement between us and a non-EU country has nothing to do with the deal we get with the EU. If that country wants to enter into a deal that allows it to continue to trade with us on the same terms as it trades with the EU it can do so, provided we agree. That applies regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU unless we allow the EU to have a veto over our trade deals (which would clearly be unacceptable).
I am not saying Mark Price is right. I don't have any knowledge. But he is in a position to know and there is nothing inherently unbelievable about his claims, whatever you may think. If you currently trade with the UK on EU terms you may think Brexit is an opportunity to get a better deal, but equally you may think that continuing on EU terms is the easiest possible solution to cause minimum disruption to your country's trade with the UK and avoids having to enter into negotiations with the UK that could take years.
And of course no deal has to be an option. One must always be willing to walk away from any negotiation if it is not possible to achieve an outcome that is better than not having a deal at all. I hope we don't end up in that position but it should not be ruled out at this stage. See my post on negotiating 101 a few weeks ago.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
There are other aspects. The leading teacher training college in the West Indies is Lady Mico University College. Lady Mico had originally intended her charity for the rehabilitation of freed British and Irish galley slaves recaptured or ransomed from the Moors, before expanding into the education of freed slaves in the 19th Century. My Gr Gr Gr Grandfather was one of the original teachers there.
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference, which the Arab slave trade didn't have. There are plenty of works from the time about how black people literally lacked something of what it was to be human - they didn't have a soul, they didn't have emotions, only the kind of animal instincts which Descartes saw as just a kind of mechanic reflex, rather than 'passions of the soul', etc.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade (for all its horrors) at least saw slaves as being a human of the same kind, with the same faculties, feelings, even legal rights within the context of that system.
Penny quotes comments about her on Staines’s site. "Perhaps Sharia might be a good thing after all, if Ms Penny was not allowed out without a member of her Family and we did not have to look at her face, also we could stone her to death...” "Call me old fashioned bt this young lady shouid [sic] be whipped through the streets of London before being made to suck Ken Livingstones cock as people throw shit at the pair of them." She asked for these to be taken down and the men who run the site told her to get a sense of humour.
Guido has allowed and encouraged a lot worse from his supporters. He's not part of the cure 'shining a light' on anything, but part of the disease.
You went BTL
Don't go BTL
Always good advice.
Frankly, on O’Mara, I’ve said as bad or worse than much of it as part of deliberately offensive humour, though rarely online (if going full racist or sexist joke for effect, best make really really sure the people receiving it are on board), and I don’t think his being a cock is worthy of resignation, but nor is Guido going after him symptomatic of much. His own comments section is foul, I am sure (I think I recall him making some changes a year or so back to curtail it somewhat), but if someone is in a position of authority and they posture about their own righteousness, they are going to be targets. O’Mara himself unnecessarily made things more complicated than he needed to by suggesting a Tory is unlikely to be able to change and thus should probably resign over such things, which added a level of self justifying nonsense to the proceedings.
Yep, with every election there will be more children of the ‘90s becoming MPs. By the time of the next scheduled election someone born in 1990 would be 32. Apologies in advance for making people feel old!
True I feel old when next year people born in 2000 will be able to vote.
People born just after the dissolution of Czechoslovakia have been able to vote at the last two elections and didn't miss the one before that by much.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages ....
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference....
The arab slave trade was pretty devastating, as a visit to Nkhotakota in Malawi shows.
The triangle trade is most relavent to British (mostly English) social and economic history. Not only is it a part of the ancestry of BME Britons, but also to the rise of the Atlantic ports, banking and iron manufacturing in the West Midlands.
Abolitionism is also important, but ours is a tainted heritage by the stan of slavery.
The Atlantic ports perhaps ((although even then restricting to Bristol would be more convincing). The rest, let’s say that that I hope that you are more accurate in your day job .
I find Marx's image of 'primitive accumulation', financing industrialisation by exploiting agricultural economies, quite incisive. Provides a unifying thread from the Atlantic slave trade, through the Indian famines, through the Soviet industrialisation efforts, etc. A giant shift from the dominance of agriculture to the dominance of industry, a giant redistribution of resources by various means from unwaged agricultural worker to employer of wage labour (whether private or state).
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
There are other aspects. The leading teacher training college in the West Indies is Lady Mico University College. Lady Mico had originally intended her charity for the rehabilitation of freed British and Irish galley slaves recaptured or ransomed from the Moors, before expanding into the education of freed slaves in the 19th Century. My Gr Gr Gr Grandfather was one of the original teachers there.
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference, which the Arab slave trade didn't have. There are plenty of works from the time about how black people literally lacked something of what it was to be human - they didn't have a soul, they didn't have emotions, only the kind of animal instincts which Descartes saw as just a kind of mechanic reflex, rather than 'passions of the soul', etc.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade (for all its horrors) at least saw slaves as being a human of the same kind, with the same faculties, feelings, even legal rights within the context of that system.
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
However if they converted to Islam their conditions would improve, to the extent of being able to own slaves themselves.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
There are other aspects. The leading teacher training college in the West Indies is Lady Mico University College. Lady Mico had originally intended her charity for the rehabilitation of freed British and Irish galley slaves recaptured or ransomed from the Moors, before expanding into the education of freed slaves in the 19th Century. My Gr Gr Gr Grandfather was one of the original teachers there.
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference, which the Arab slave trade didn't have. There are plenty of works from the time about how black people literally lacked something of what it was to be human - they didn't have a soul, they didn't have emotions, only the kind of animal instincts which Descartes saw as just a kind of mechanic reflex, rather than 'passions of the soul', etc.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade (for all its horrors) at least saw slaves as being a human of the same kind, with the same faculties, feelings, even legal rights within the context of that system.
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
However if they converted to Islam their conditions would improve, to the extent of being able to own slaves themselves.
Guido has allowed and encouraged a lot worse from his supporters. He's not part of the cure 'shining a light' on anything, but part of the disease.
You went BTL
Don't go BTL
Always good advice.
Frankly, on O’Mara, I’ve said as bad or worse than much of it as part of deliberately offensive humour, though rarely online (if going full racist or sexist joke for effect, best make really really sure the people receiving it are on board), and I don’t think his being a cock is worthy of resignation, but nor is Guido going after him symptomatic of much. His own comments section is foul, I am sure (I think I recall him making some changes a year or so back to curtail it somewhat), but if someone is in a position of authority and they posture about their own righteousness, they are going to be targets. O’Mara himself unnecessarily made things more complicated than he needed to by suggesting a Tory is unlikely to be able to change and thus should probably resign over such things, which added a level of self justifying nonsense to the proceedings.
Yep, with every election there will be more children of the ‘90s becoming MPs. By the time of the next scheduled election someone born in 1990 would be 32. Apologies in advance for making people feel old!
True I feel old when next year people born in 2000 will be able to vote.
People born just after the dissolution of Czechoslovakia have been able to vote at the last two elections and didn't miss the one before that by much.
Discussing voting intentions with grandchildren who can (and do) vote can be somewhat unsettling!
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
There are other aspects. The leading teacher training college in the West Indies is Lady Mico University College. Lady Mico had originally intended her charity for the rehabilitation of freed British and Irish galley slaves recaptured or ransomed from the Moors, before expanding into the education of freed slaves in the 19th Century. My Gr Gr Gr Grandfather was one of the original teachers there.
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference, which the Arab slave trade didn't have. There are plenty of works from the time about how black people literally lacked something of what it was to be human - they didn't have a soul, they didn't have emotions, only the kind of animal instincts which Descartes saw as just a kind of mechanic reflex, rather than 'passions of the soul', etc.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade (for all its horrors) at least saw slaves as being a human of the same kind, with the same faculties, feelings, even legal rights within the context of that system.
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous...
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference, which the Arab slave trade didn't have. There are plenty of works from the time about how black people literally lacked something of what it was to be human - they didn't have a soul, they didn't have emotions, only the kind of animal instincts which Descartes saw as just a kind of mechanic reflex, rather than 'passions of the soul', etc.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade (for all its horrors) at least saw slaves as being a human of the same kind, with the same faculties, feelings, even legal rights within the context of that system.
The arab slave trade was pretty devastating, as a visit to Nkhotakota in Malawi shows.
The triangle trade is most relavent to British (mostly English) social and economic history. Not only is it a part of the ancestry of BME Britons, but also to the rise of the Atlantic ports, banking and iron manufacturing in the West Midlands.
Abolitionism is also important, but ours is a tainted heritage by the stan of slavery.
There are few nations which do not have terrible deeds in their past, where peoe could dominate they often did, if not always in such a stark way. References to it being stained to my mind are not overly helpful, anyone than whitewashing events is, in thinking how to learn from it today, since it encourages cultural guilt for things the modern culture, while not perfect, abhors.
Such references might not be 'helpful', but they are at least honest. It certainly beats the revisionist glorification of past brutalities on display in, for example, Russia.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
How many kids in the UK get taught about this aspect of the slave trade? (And it's a BBC source - so it must be true!)
Fascinating! I never knew that! Which I suppose is your point.....two wrongs don’t make a right - least of all if one of the wrongs was orders of magnitude greater - but it’s a nuance which is lost - or buried?
Those with some knowledge of the US Marine Corps might recall references to the shores of Tripoli in their hymn. This came from the first US military engagement in the Old World in the First Barbary War, fought over the continued Barbary pirate practice of targeting Christian ships.
However, although I was aware of the problem of the Barbary pirates, I had no idea it was this bad:
"According to Robert Davis, between 1 and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries."
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference, which the Arab slave trade didn't have. There are plenty of works from the time about how black people literally lacked something of what it was to be human - they didn't have a soul, they didn't have emotions, only the kind of animal instincts which Descartes saw as just a kind of mechanic reflex, rather than 'passions of the soul', etc.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade (for all its horrors) at least saw slaves as being a human of the same kind, with the same faculties, feelings, even legal rights within the context of that system.
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
The Japanese treatment of their Korean and Manchurian subjects could be appalling. ‘Logs of wood’ was, IIRC used when they were involved in quasi-medical experiments. Edit. Not forgetting their treatment of Allied PoW’s, who in Japanese eyes had no rights, since they had surrendered.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous...
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference, which the Arab slave trade didn't have. There are plenty of works from the time about how black people literally lacked something of what it was to be human - they didn't have a soul, they didn't have emotions, only the kind of animal instincts which Descartes saw as just a kind of mechanic reflex, rather than 'passions of the soul', etc.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade (for all its horrors) at least saw slaves as being a human of the same kind, with the same faculties, feelings, even legal rights within the context of that system.
The arab slave trade was pretty devastating, as a visit to Nkhotakota in Malawi shows.
The triangle trade is most relavent to British (mostly English) social and economic history.
There are few nations which do not have terrible deeds in their past, where peoe could dominate they often did, if not always in such a stark way. bhors.
Such references might not be 'helpful', but they are at least honest. It certainly beats the revisionist glorification of past brutalities on display in, for example, Russia.
They are not merely honest though, a term like stain is very emotive, suggestive of a need that may or may not exist to make amends, depending on the issue of personal enduring shame we should feel. At no point did I suggest ignoring or glorifying, but trying to be objective when judging the unpalatable aspects of ones nation in its proper context, rather than pretend it didnt happen or pretend uniqueness of shame.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
How many kids in the UK get taught about this aspect of the slave trade? (And it's a BBC source - so it must be true!)
Fascinating! I never knew that! Which I suppose is your point.....two wrongs don’t make a right - least of all if one of the wrongs was orders of magnitude greater - but it’s a nuance which is lost - or buried?
Those with some knowledge of the US Marine Corps might recall references to the shores of Tripoli in their hymn. This came from the first US military engagement in the Old World in the First Barbary War, fought over the continued Barbary pirate practice of targeting Christian ships.
However, although I was aware of the problem of the Barbary pirates, I had no idea it was this bad:
"According to Robert Davis, between 1 and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries."
Including Cervantes & John Knox if I recall correctly.
Edit: on checking Knox was actually a slave in French galleys. I guess that indicates the whole issue is 'complicated'.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages ...
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
Yes it's most relevant....
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference....
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
The Japanese treatment of their Korean and Manchurian subjects could be appalling. ‘Logs of wood’ was, IIRC used when they were involved in quasi-medical experiments. Edit. Not forgetting their treatment of Allied PoW’s, who in Japanese eyes had no rights, since they had surrendered.
That's interesting (and chilling!) Found this from a quick google: http://unit731.org/ - warning, it has distressing photos.
I think it helps to illustrate what sets the Atlantic slave trade off from the Arab slave trade. Where the latter was similar to the thousands of years of slavery from antiquity onwards, the Atlantic slave trade was mixed up in this racial science, a very modern phenomenon. You can draw a line from Jefferson musing on the 'physical and moral differences' of the melanin in black skin to the experiments of Mengele and Unit 731.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages ...
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
Yes it's most relevant....
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference....
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
The Japanese treatment of their Korean and Manchurian subjects could be appalling. ‘Logs of wood’ was, IIRC used when they were involved in quasi-medical experiments. Edit. Not forgetting their treatment of Allied PoW’s, who in Japanese eyes had no rights, since they had surrendered.
That's interesting (and chilling!) Found this from a quick google: http://unit731.org/ - warning, it has distressing photos.
I think it helps to illustrate what sets the Atlantic slave trade off from the Arab slave trade. Where the latter was similar to the thousands of years of slavery from antiquity onwards, the Atlantic slave trade was mixed up in this racial science, a very modern phenomenon. You can draw a line from Jefferson musing on the 'physical and moral differences' of the melanin in black skin to the experiments of Mengele and Unit 731.
I’m no expert, but didn’t the Atlantic slave trade predate the racial ‘science’, which was in a sense an effort to justify the trade
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
There are other aspects. The leading teacher training college in the West Indies is Lady Mico University College. Lady Mico had originally intended her charity for the rehabilitation of freed British and Irish galley slaves recaptured or ransomed from the Moors, before expanding into the education of freed slaves in the 19th Century. My Gr Gr Gr Grandfather was one of the original teachers there.
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade (for all its horrors) at least saw slaves as being a human of the same kind, with the same faculties, feelings, even legal rights within the context of that system.
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
It's a distinction that probably meant more to the slave owners than to the slaves.
Aristotle thought of slaves as "talking furniture" and like most Greeks, considered slavery to be correct, because some people were servile by nature. That argument was never advanced by Roman jurists, who did view slaves as human beings, and were willing to see freed slaves become citizens. But, in practice, slavery could be every bit as brutal in the Roman Empire as in the Greek city states.
I doubt if there was much to choose between North Africa and the Americas in terms of the treatment of slaves.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference, which the Arab slave trade didn't have. There are plenty of works from the time about how black people literally lacked something of what it was to be human - they didn't have a soul, they didn't have emotions, only the kind of animal instincts which Descartes saw as just a kind of mechanic reflex, rather than 'passions of the soul', etc.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade (for all its horrors) at least saw slaves as being a human of the same kind, with the same faculties, feelings, even legal rights within the context of that system.
The arab slave trade was pretty devastating, as a visit to Nkhotakota in Malawi shows.
The triangle trade is most relavent to British (mostly English) social and economic history. Not only is it a part of the ancestry of BME Britons, but also to the rise of the Atlantic ports, banking and iron manufacturing in the West Midlands.
Abolitionism is also important, but ours is a tainted heritage by the stan of slavery.
It is, and we need to keep a sense of perspective on it. On the one hand, it probably constitutes this country's greatest crime against humanity (and there are more of those than are popularly admitted of even understood). We shouldn't feel an overt sense of shame about something that happened 200 years ago and which most other countries were doing or would have done given the chance. We should, however, temper our enthusiasm for nostalgia of empire with the memory of on what it was founded.
He is referring to the preferential trade deals that the European Union has with 60 third countries. Let the sheer stupidity of that assertion sink in. This is the European Union that we are leaving - that some people are proposing to have nothing to do with. Arrangements struck as a body of 28 nations, and which will continue anyway, can't "roll over" for the UK.
The UK can propose new arrangements somewhat based on the EU ones to each of those 60 third countries. Those countries could choose to sign up quickly to those terms. My guess is a number of less important countries will do so. The others will take their time and will hold out for more advantageous terms for themselves. We won't be without third party agreements for ever, but it will take time and we are never likely to get back to arrangements that are as favourable as those we have now.
You realise, of course, that Mark Price was Minister of State for Trade Policy until last month. And that he claims that, on behalf of the government, he visited these 60 countries who have agreed to roll over the current deal and are working through the details.
The point is they have to be new agreements because the UK on its own is a different beast from the UK as part of the EU, let alone the EU itself which is the party these agreements were struck with. So the UK can propose to the other party that the agreements can stick as closely as possible to the EU originals for simplicity and shortcut some of the negotiation. But they can't be the same or even very similar. For example we can't offer the Single Market, which is the key attraction for many of these countries. The US Commerce Department asked exporting companies what they wanted from a potential trade deal with the UK. The only thing they were interested in was the UK remaining in the SIngle Market because that protects their investments.
You realise, of course, that Mark Price was Minister of State for Trade Policy until last month. And that he claims that, on behalf of the government, he visited these 60 countries who have agreed to roll over the current deal and are working through the details.
Does that realisation:
a) Fill you with confidence that Liam Fox's department is on top of things and fully grounded in reality, or b) Fill you with horror that Liam Fox's department is wholly divorced from reality and believes that warm words are sufficient?
To make one obvious point, how on earth should anyone believe that 60-odd countries are currently 'working through the details' when even our own government has no idea what will happen and regards 'no deal' merely as a negotiating position?
To provide the blindingly obvious answer, the details of a trade agreement between us and a non-EU country has nothing to do with the deal we get with the EU. If that country wants to enter into a deal that allows it to continue to trade with us on the same terms as it trades with the EU it can do so, provided we agree. That applies regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU unless we allow the EU to have a veto over our trade deals (which would clearly be unacceptable).
I am not saying Mark Price is right. I don't have any knowledge. But he is in a position to know and there is nothing inherently unbelievable about his claims, whatever you may think. If you currently trade with the UK on EU terms you may think Brexit is an opportunity to get a better deal, but equally you may think that continuing on EU terms is the easiest possible solution to cause minimum disruption to your country's trade with the UK and avoids having to enter into negotiations with the UK that could take years.
And of course no deal has to be an option. One must always be willing to walk away from any negotiation if it is not possible to achieve an outcome that is better than not having a deal at all. I hope we don't end up in that position but it should not be ruled out at this stage. See my post on negotiating 101 a few weeks ago.
OK so let's suppose we have, post-Brexit, the following:
Intra-EU widget mutual tariff: zero EU - UK widget mutual tariff: zero EU - Farland widget mutual tariff: 10% UK - Farland widget mutual tariff: 5%
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
How many kids in the UK get taught about this aspect of the slave trade? (And it's a BBC source - so it must be true!)
Fascinating! I never knew that! Which I suppose is your point.....two wrongs don’t make a right - least of all if one of the wrongs was orders of magnitude greater - but it’s a nuance which is lost - or buried?
Those with some knowledge of the US Marine Corps might recall references to the shores of Tripoli in their hymn. This came from the first US military engagement in the Old World in the First Barbary War, fought over the continued Barbary pirate practice of targeting Christian ships.
However, although I was aware of the problem of the Barbary pirates, I had no idea it was this bad:
"According to Robert Davis, between 1 and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries."
Including Cervantes & John Knox if I recall correctly.
Edit: on checking Knox was actually a slave in French galleys. I guess that indicates the whole issue is 'complicated'.
Often the Moorish slaves would be ransomed, and those that converted to Islam were often poorly treated if they returned to Britain. Hence the Lady Mico Foundation.
On topic: @AndyJS made referendum night with his spreadsheet. I am not the only one that owes him a few drinks!
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages ...
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
Yes it's most relevant....
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference....
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
The Japanese treatment of their Korean and Manchurian subjects could be appalling. ‘Logs of wood’ was, IIRC used when they were involved in quasi-medical experiments. Edit. Not forgetting their treatment of Allied PoW’s, who in Japanese eyes had no rights, since they had surrendered.
That's interesting (and chilling!) Found this from a quick google: http://unit731.org/ - warning, it has distressing photos.
I think it helps to illustrate what sets the Atlantic slave trade off from the Arab slave trade. Where the latter was similar to the thousands of years of slavery from antiquity onwards, the Atlantic slave trade was mixed up in this racial science, a very modern phenomenon. You can draw a line from Jefferson musing on the 'physical and moral differences' of the melanin in black skin to the experiments of Mengele and Unit 731.
I’m no expert, but didn’t the Atlantic slave trade predate the racial ‘science’, which was in a sense an effort to justify the trade
I'm not an expert either, but that is my impression too - that the Atlantic slave trade started off like any other slave system based in indenture of people who were still considered people in the full sense of the term, but later took on this particular character.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
How many kids in the UK get taught about this aspect of the slave trade? (And it's a BBC source - so it must be true!)
Fascinating! I never knew that! Which I suppose is your point.....two wrongs don’t make a right - least of all if one of the wrongs was orders of magnitude greater - but it’s a nuance which is lost - or buried?
Those with some knowledge of the US Marine Corps might recall references to the shores of Tripoli in their hymn. This came from the first US military engagement in the Old World in the First Barbary War, fought over the continued Barbary pirate practice of targeting Christian ships.
However, although I was aware of the problem of the Barbary pirates, I had no idea it was this bad:
"According to Robert Davis, between 1 and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries."
The Slavs acquired their name, because so many were captured by the early Holy Roman Emperors, and sold into slavery in the Middle East. The Vikings were also great slave traders.
Guido has allowed and encouraged a lot worse from his supporters. He's not part of the cure 'shining a light' on anything, but part of the disease.
You went BTL
Don't go BTL
Always good advice.
Frankly, on O’Mara, I’ve said as bad or worse than much of it as part of deliberately offensive humour, though rarely online (if going full racist or sexist joke for effect, best make really really sure the people receiving it are on board), and I don’t think his being a cock is worthy of resignation, but nor is Guido going after him symptomatic of much. His own comments section is foul, I am sure (I think I recall him making some changes a year or so back to curtail it somewhat), but if someone is in a position of authority and they posture about their own righteousness, they are going to be targets. O’Mara himself unnecessarily made things more complicated than he needed to by suggesting a Tory is unlikely to be able to change and thus should probably resign over such things, which added a level of self justifying nonsense to the proceedings.
Yep, with every election there will be more children of the ‘90s becoming MPs. By the time of the next scheduled election someone born in 1990 would be 32. Apologies in advance for making people feel old!
True I feel old when next year people born in 2000 will be able to vote.
People born just after the dissolution of Czechoslovakia have been able to vote at the last two elections and didn't miss the one before that by much.
Discussing voting intentions with grandchildren who can (and do) vote can be somewhat unsettling!
I suspect that they may hold an identical position, but in regards to you!
You realise, of course, that Mark Price was Minister of State for Trade Policy until last month. And that he claims that, on behalf of the government, he visited these 60 countries who have agreed to roll over the current deal and are working through the details.
Does that realisation:
a) Fill you with confidence that Liam Fox's department is on top of things and fully grounded in reality, or b) Fill you with horror that Liam Fox's department is wholly divorced from reality and believes that warm words are sufficient?
To make one obvious point, how on earth should anyone believe that 60-odd countries are currently 'working through the details' when even our own government has no idea what will happen and regards 'no deal' merely as a negotiating position?
To provide the blindingly obvious answer, the details of a trade agreement between us and a non-EU country has nothing to do with the deal we get with the EU. If that country wants to enter into a deal that allows it to continue to trade with us on the same terms as it trades with the EU it can do so, provided we agree. That applies regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU unless we allow the EU to have a veto over our trade deals (which would clearly be unacceptable).
I am not saying Mark Price is right. I don't have any knowledge. But he is in a position to know and there is nothing inherently unbelievable about his claims, whatever you may think. If you currently trade with the UK on EU terms you may think Brexit is an opportunity to get a better deal, but equally you may think that continuing on EU terms is the easiest possible solution to cause minimum disruption to your country's trade with the UK and avoids having to enter into negotiations with the UK that could take years.
And of course no deal has to be an option. One must always be willing to walk away from any negotiation if it is not possible to achieve an outcome that is better than not having a deal at all. I hope we don't end up in that position but it should not be ruled out at this stage. See my post on negotiating 101 a few weeks ago.
OK so let's suppose we have, post-Brexit, the following:
Intra-EU widget mutual tariff: zero EU - UK widget mutual tariff: zero EU - Farland widget mutual tariff: 10% UK - Farland widget mutual tariff: 5%
Guido has allowed and encouraged a lot worse from his supporters. He's not part of the cure 'shining a light' on anything, but part of the disease.
You went BTL
Don't go BTL
Always good advice.
Frankly, on O’Mara, I’ve said as bad or worse than much of it as part of deliberately offensive humour, though rarely online (if going full racist or sexist joke for effect, best make really really sure the people receiving it are on board), and I don’t think his being a cock is worthy of resignation, but nor is Guido going after him symptomatic of much. His own comments section is foul, I am sure (I think I recall him making some changes a year or so back to curtail it somewhat), but if someone is in a position of authority and they posture about their own righteousness, they are going to be targets. O’Mara himself unnecessarily made things more complicated than he needed to by suggesting a Tory is unlikely to be able to change and thus should probably resign over such things, which added a level of self justifying nonsense to the proceedings.
Yep, with every election there will be more children of the ‘90s becoming MPs. By the time of the next scheduled election someone born in 1990 would be 32. Apologies in advance for making people feel old!
True I feel old when next year people born in 2000 will be able to vote.
People born just after the dissolution of Czechoslovakia have been able to vote at the last two elections and didn't miss the one before that by much.
Discussing voting intentions with grandchildren who can (and do) vote can be somewhat unsettling!
I suspect that they may hold an identical position, but in regards to you!
LOL. However, as far the eldest two are concerned it’s obvious that the wisdom of their grandfather is respected and acknowledged. Not sure whether that will apply to the next grandchild, who will be voting in elections after May 2021.
It's a distinction that probably meant more to the slave owners than to the slaves.
Aristotle thought of slaves as "talking furniture" and like most Greeks, considered slavery to be correct, because some people were servile by nature. That argument was never advanced by Roman jurists, who did view slaves as human beings, and were willing to see freed slaves become citizens. But, in practice, slavery could be every bit as brutal in the Roman Empire as in the Greek city states.
I doubt if there was much to choose between North Africa and the Americas in terms of the treatment of slaves.
I don't know much about the lives of N. African slaves, but wasn't the life expectancy of US & Caribbean slaves notably short? I'm sure I read somewhere that the economics of the sugar plantations were based on the optimum period that a slave could be exploited before his death, something like 7 years I think.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
How many kids in the UK get taught about this aspect of the slave trade? (And it's a BBC source - so it must be true!)
Fascinating! I never knew that! Which I suppose is your point.....two wrongs don’t make a right - least of all if one of the wrongs was orders of magnitude greater - but it’s a nuance which is lost - or buried?
Those with some knowledge of the US Marine Corps might recall references to the shores of Tripoli in their hymn. This came from the first US military engagement in the Old World in the First Barbary War, fought over the continued Barbary pirate practice of targeting Christian ships.
However, although I was aware of the problem of the Barbary pirates, I had no idea it was this bad:
"According to Robert Davis, between 1 and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries."
The Slavs acquired their name, because so many were captured by the early Holy Roman Emperors, and sold into slavery in the Middle East. The Vikings were also great slave traders.
I believe a significant proportion of the Icelandic gene pool is Celtic, largely derived from female slaves taken, mostly, from Ireland, and the Hebrides.
It's a distinction that probably meant more to the slave owners than to the slaves.
Aristotle thought of slaves as "talking furniture" and like most Greeks, considered slavery to be correct, because some people were servile by nature. That argument was never advanced by Roman jurists, who did view slaves as human beings, and were willing to see freed slaves become citizens. But, in practice, slavery could be every bit as brutal in the Roman Empire as in the Greek city states.
I doubt if there was much to choose between North Africa and the Americas in terms of the treatment of slaves.
I don't know much about the lives of N. African slaves, but wasn't the life expectancy of US & Caribbean slaves notably short? I'm sure I read somewhere that the economics of the sugar plantations were based on the optimum period that a slave could be exploited before his death, something like 7 years I think.
Echoes of the calculations performed to maximise the output of the slave labour building Peenemünde*, balanced against the resources required to keep them productive (i.e. food and rest). Their life expectancy was much, much shorter.
*EDIT: not Peenemünde, but the relocation of it's activities to a purpose built cavern and tunnels in Austria.
It's a distinction that probably meant more to the slave owners than to the slaves.
Aristotle thought of slaves as "talking furniture" and like most Greeks, considered slavery to be correct, because some people were servile by nature. That argument was never advanced by Roman jurists, who did view slaves as human beings, and were willing to see freed slaves become citizens. But, in practice, slavery could be every bit as brutal in the Roman Empire as in the Greek city states.
I doubt if there was much to choose between North Africa and the Americas in terms of the treatment of slaves.
I don't know much about the lives of N. African slaves, but wasn't the life expectancy of US & Caribbean slaves notably short? I'm sure I read somewhere that the economics of the sugar plantations were based on the optimum period that a slave could be exploited before his death, something like 7 years I think.
IIRC life expectancy at birth for white person in America 1860 was 42. For a slave it was half that.
It's a distinction that probably meant more to the slave owners than to the slaves.
Aristotle thought of slaves as "talking furniture" and like most Greeks, considered slavery to be correct, because some people were servile by nature. That argument was never advanced by Roman jurists, who did view slaves as human beings, and were willing to see freed slaves become citizens. But, in practice, slavery could be every bit as brutal in the Roman Empire as in the Greek city states.
I doubt if there was much to choose between North Africa and the Americas in terms of the treatment of slaves.
I don't know much about the lives of N. African slaves, but wasn't the life expectancy of US & Caribbean slaves notably short? I'm sure I read somewhere that the economics of the sugar plantations were based on the optimum period that a slave could be exploited before his death, something like 7 years I think.
IIRC life expectancy at birth for white person in America 1860 was 42. For a slave it was half that.
Slaves suffered extremely high mortality. Half of all slave infants died during their first year of life, twice the rate of white babies. And while the death rate declined for those who survived their first year, it remained twice the white rate through age 14.
As a result of this high infant and childhood death rate, the average life expectancy of a slave at birth was just 21 or 22 years, compared to 40 to 43 years for antebellum whites. Compared to whites, relatively few slaves lived into old age.
It's a distinction that probably meant more to the slave owners than to the slaves.
Aristotle thought of slaves as "talking furniture" and like most Greeks, considered slavery to be correct, because some people were servile by nature. That argument was never advanced by Roman jurists, who did view slaves as human beings, and were willing to see freed slaves become citizens. But, in practice, slavery could be every bit as brutal in the Roman Empire as in the Greek city states.
I doubt if there was much to choose between North Africa and the Americas in terms of the treatment of slaves.
I don't know much about the lives of N. African slaves, but wasn't the life expectancy of US & Caribbean slaves notably short? I'm sure I read somewhere that the economics of the sugar plantations were based on the optimum period that a slave could be exploited before his death, something like 7 years I think.
The West Indies were worse than America, I think (Haiti probably worst of all). As always, if you were a household slave, your life expectancy (and possibility of freedom) was a lot a greater than if you were a field hand.
OTOH, a galley slave in North Africa probably would die a lot sooner than seven years (which was probably a mercy).
You realise, of course, that Mark Price was Minister of State for Trade Policy until last month. And that he claims that, on behalf of the government, he visited these 60 countries who have agreed to roll over the current deal and are working through the details.
Does that realisation:
a) Fill you with confidence that Liam Fox's department is on top of things and fully grounded in reality, or b) Fill you with horror that Liam Fox's department is wholly divorced from reality and believes that warm words are sufficient?
To make one obvious point, how on earth should anyone believe that 60-odd countries are currently 'working through the details' when even our own government has no idea what will happen and regards 'no deal' merely as a negotiating position?
To provide the blindingly obvious answer, the details of a trade agreement between us and a non-EU country has nothing to do with the deal we get with the EU. If that country wants to enter into a deal that allows it to continue to trade with us on the same terms as it trades with the EU it can do so, provided we agree. That applies regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU unless we allow the EU to have a veto over our trade deals (which would clearly be unacceptable).
I am not saying Mark Price is right. I don't have any knowledge. But he is in a position to know and there is nothing inherently unbelievable about his claims, whatever you may think. If you currently trade with the UK on EU terms you may think Brexit is an opportunity to get a better deal, but equally you may think that continuing on EU terms is the easiest possible solution to cause minimum disruption to your country's trade with the UK and avoids having to enter into negotiations with the UK that could take years.
And of course no deal has to be an option. One must always be willing to walk away from any negotiation if it is not possible to achieve an outcome that is better than not having a deal at all. I hope we don't end up in that position but it should not be ruled out at this stage. See my post on negotiating 101 a few weeks ago.
OK so let's suppose we have, post-Brexit, the following:
Intra-EU widget mutual tariff: zero EU - UK widget mutual tariff: zero EU - Farland widget mutual tariff: 10% UK - Farland widget mutual tariff: 5%
What would happen?
And would the EU-Farland dispute resolution mechanism be responsible for adjudicating?
Was that possible? I thought the EU were clear they would commit to nothing until A50 was triggered and negotiations formally began? Otherwise we could on effect have negotiated without the ticking clock.
It's a distinction that probably meant more to the slave owners than to the slaves.
Aristotle thought of slaves as "talking furniture" and like most Greeks, considered slavery to be correct, because some people were servile by nature. That argument was never advanced by Roman jurists, who did view slaves as human beings, and were willing to see freed slaves become citizens. But, in practice, slavery could be every bit as brutal in the Roman Empire as in the Greek city states.
I doubt if there was much to choose between North Africa and the Americas in terms of the treatment of slaves.
I don't know much about the lives of N. African slaves, but wasn't the life expectancy of US & Caribbean slaves notably short? I'm sure I read somewhere that the economics of the sugar plantations were based on the optimum period that a slave could be exploited before his death, something like 7 years I think.
The West Indies were worse than America, I think (Haiti probably worst of all). As always, if you were a household slave, your life expectancy (and possibility of freedom) was a lot a greater than if you were a field hand.
OTOH, a galley slave in North Africa probably would die a lot sooner than seven years (which was probably a mercy).
Old Cervantes survived 5 years, but he was an exceptional chap in all sorts of ways.
It's a distinction that probably meant more to the slave owners than to the slaves.
Aristotle thought of slaves as "talking furniture" and like most Greeks, considered slavery to be correct, because some people were servile by nature. That argument was never advanced by Roman jurists, who did view slaves as human beings, and were willing to see freed slaves become citizens. But, in practice, slavery could be every bit as brutal in the Roman Empire as in the Greek city states.
I doubt if there was much to choose between North Africa and the Americas in terms of the treatment of slaves.
I don't know much about the lives of N. African slaves, but wasn't the life expectancy of US & Caribbean slaves notably short? I'm sure I read somewhere that the economics of the sugar plantations were based on the optimum period that a slave could be exploited before his death, something like 7 years I think.
IIRC life expectancy at birth for white person in America 1860 was 42. For a slave it was half that.
Slaves suffered extremely high mortality. Half of all slave infants died during their first year of life, twice the rate of white babies. And while the death rate declined for those who survived their first year, it remained twice the white rate through age 14.
As a result of this high infant and childhood death rate, the average life expectancy of a slave at birth was just 21 or 22 years, compared to 40 to 43 years for antebellum whites. Compared to whites, relatively few slaves lived into old age.
Isn’t that beyond the scope of the A50 negotiations?
Well yes. His comment simply smacks covering himself by saying, "They didn't listen to me and now we're screwed." The only significant part of it is his belief that we are indeed screwed.
Isn’t that beyond the scope of the A50 negotiations?
Well yes. His comment simply smacks covering himself by saying, "They didn't listen to me and now we're screwed." The only significant part of it is his belief that we are indeed screwed.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
Yes it's most relevant....
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference....
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
The Japanese treatment of their Korean and Manchurian subjects could be appalling. ‘Logs of wood’ was, IIRC used when they were involved in quasi-medical experiments. Edit. Not forgetting their treatment of Allied PoW’s, who in Japanese eyes had no rights, since they had surrendered.
That's interesting (and chilling!) Found this from a quick google: http://unit731.org/ - warning, it has distressing photos.
I think it helps to illustrate what sets the Atlantic slave trade off from the Arab slave trade. Where the latter was similar to the thousands of years of slavery from antiquity onwards, the Atlantic slave trade was mixed up in this racial science, a very modern phenomenon. You can draw a line from Jefferson musing on the 'physical and moral differences' of the melanin in black skin to the experiments of Mengele and Unit 731.
I’m no expert, but didn’t the Atlantic slave trade predate the racial ‘science’, which was in a sense an effort to justify the trade
I'm not an expert either, but that is my impression too - that the Atlantic slave trade started off like any other slave system based in indenture of people who were still considered people in the full sense of the term, but later took on this particular character.
Yes, it was. In its earliest days - the early/mid-17th century - there wasn't a great difference between indentured whites and slaves. Both the nature of slavery and the distinction between whites and blacks sharpened as it became more a feature (eventually, a defining one) of the society and economy.
As an aside, one of the statues removed just this summer in the South was to Chief Justice Taney, who delivered the Dred Scott decision which stated explicitly that blacks, whether free or not, were not and could not be citizens.
Isn’t that beyond the scope of the A50 negotiations?
Well yes. His comment simply smacks covering himself by saying, "They didn't listen to me and now we're screwed." The only significant part of it is his belief that we are indeed screwed.
On the other hand our trade deal with Czechoslovakia is coming on well, though I think the time machine isnt quite there yet...
It's a distinction that probably meant more to the slave owners than to the slaves.
Aristotle thought of slaves as "talking furniture" and like most Greeks, considered slavery to be correct, because some people were servile by nature. That argument was never advanced by Roman jurists, who did view slaves as human beings, and were willing to see freed slaves become citizens. But, in practice, slavery could be every bit as brutal in the Roman Empire as in the Greek city states.
I doubt if there was much to choose between North Africa and the Americas in terms of the treatment of slaves.
I don't know much about the lives of N. African slaves, but wasn't the life expectancy of US & Caribbean slaves notably short? I'm sure I read somewhere that the economics of the sugar plantations were based on the optimum period that a slave could be exploited before his death, something like 7 years I think.
IIRC life expectancy at birth for white person in America 1860 was 42. For a slave it was half that.
Slaves suffered extremely high mortality. Half of all slave infants died during their first year of life, twice the rate of white babies. And while the death rate declined for those who survived their first year, it remained twice the white rate through age 14.
As a result of this high infant and childhood death rate, the average life expectancy of a slave at birth was just 21 or 22 years, compared to 40 to 43 years for antebellum whites. Compared to whites, relatively few slaves lived into old age.
On slavery, I recently had the pleasure of listening to a talk by the Rector of Canvey Island on th subject of slavery in his home island, Barbados. It was abundantly clear, and he made no bones about the fact, that some at least of his ancestors had been slaves. He discussed the history of the island and how several ‘sorts’ of slaves West African and Irish, and indentures labourers, English and Jewish. had been brought there and had, over the generaltions mingled. The only time he seemed angered by anything it was when he told us that when the slaves were eventually freed compensation was paid. To the slave-owners!
Isn’t that beyond the scope of the A50 negotiations?
Well yes. His comment simply smacks covering himself by saying, "They didn't listen to me and now we're screwed." The only significant part of it is his belief that we are indeed screwed.
On the other hand our trade deal with Czechoslovakia is coming on well, though I think the time machine isnt quite there yet...
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
Yes it's most relevant....
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference....
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
The Japanese treatment of their Korean and Manchurian subjects could be appalling. ‘Logs of wood’ was, IIRC used when they were involved in quasi-medical experiments. Edit. Not forgetting their treatment of Allied PoW’s, who in Japanese eyes had no rights, since they had surrendered.
That's interesting (and chilling!) Found this from a quick google: http://unit731.org/ - warning, it has distressing photos.
I think
I’m no expert, but didn’t the Atlantic slave trade predate the racial ‘science’, which was in a sense an effort to justify the trade
I'm not an expert either, but that is my impression too - that the Atlantic slave trade started off like any other slave system based in indenture of people who were still considered people in the full sense of the term, but later took on this particular character.
Yes, it was. In its earliest days - the early/mid-17th century - there wasn't a great difference between indentured whites and slaves. Both the nature of slavery and the distinction between whites and blacks sharpened as it became more a feature (eventually, a defining one) of the society and economy.
As an aside, one of the statues removed just this summer in the South was to Chief Justice Taney, who delivered the Dred Scott decision which stated explicitly that blacks, whether free or not, were not and could not be citizens.
It was only in1967 that Australian Aboriginies became citizens:
Isn’t that beyond the scope of the A50 negotiations?
Well yes. His comment simply smacks covering himself by saying, "They didn't listen to me and now we're screwed." The only significant part of it is his belief that we are indeed screwed.
On the other hand our trade deal with Czechoslovakia is coming on well, though I think the time machine isnt quite there yet...
It is, is it not, a far-away country of which we know little.
And as Henry Kissinger has pointed out, that remark was deliberately disingenuous even at the time it was made given that the British were quite used to the idea that they had vital national interests in places like the Hindu Kush.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade ... .
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
It's a distinction that probably meant more to the slave owners than to the slaves.
Aristotle thought of slaves as "talking furniture" and like most Greeks, considered slavery to be correct, because some people were servile by nature. That argument was never advanced by Roman jurists, who did view slaves as human beings, and were willing to see freed slaves become citizens. But, in practice, slavery could be every bit as brutal in the Roman Empire as in the Greek city states.
I doubt if there was much to choose between North Africa and the Americas in terms of the treatment of slaves.
That's difficult to say either way. In terms of brutality, I imagine there's such variation over the centuries, across different areas, and over different types of slave in both systems that it's hard to make meaningful comparisons.
I wasn't saying the Atlantic slave trade was necessarily worse, once you start counting victims in the millions I'm not sure there's a meaningful moral difference to be found. But it did become something different, part of a very modern narrative about the rise of capitalism, the decline of the peasantry, the modern colonial system, the accelerated industrial development of the West, the development of racial ideologies, the idea of nationalism etc. It didn't have the same functions nor justifications as the Arab slave trade.
It may not be this week. It may not be Boris Johnson. But eventually a minister will break with this tottering government and establish himself (or herself, for it could be Andrea Leadsom) as the leader of the diehard right. Brexit is crying out for its Ludendorff; the scoundrel who can blame his failures on everyone but himself. The smart move for today’s right wing politicians who find their careers blocked is to break with the Tory leadership – whatever or whoever that may consist of – and resort to old slogans.
The referendum delivered a mandate to leave, Johnson, or whoever takes up the challenge of building a new nationalist right, could say. The failure of Brexit to deliver the bright confident morning the Brexiteers promised the British is not the fault of the leave campaigners. For how could it be? How could so many politicians, influence peddlers and journalists be wrong? No. The ‘elite’ has stabbed the people in the back.
Isn’t that beyond the scope of the A50 negotiations?
Well yes. His comment simply smacks covering himself by saying, "They didn't listen to me and now we're screwed." The only significant part of it is his belief that we are indeed screwed.
On the other hand our trade deal with Czechoslovakia is coming on well, though I think the time machine isnt quite there yet...
It is, is it not, a far-away country of which we know little.
And as Henry Kissinger has pointed out, that remark was deliberately disingenuous even at the time it was made given that the British were quite used to the idea that they had vital national interests in places like the Hindu Kush.
Just been reasding Simon Mawers ‘The Glass Room’ which deals with that time, and the Jewish-Czech central characters are depicted as being heartbroken as they listen to the broadcast.
Risk of legal challenge is not necessarily the same as risk of a successful legal challenge of course. It's a very interesting question, which I hope won't need answering, as to whether the required constitutional moves have already been fulfilled.
On sopping wet lettuce Grieve's legal challenge wibbling: to what end?
Let's say time runs out, and there's no vote in the Commons. What does a legal challenge lead to? Do we stay in? Because that's contrary to Article 50 or any deal signed. Does it annul any deal agreed?
On sopping wet lettuce Grieve's legal challenge wibbling: to what end?
Let's say time runs out, and there's no vote in the Commons. What does a legal challenge lead to? Do we stay in? Because that's contrary to Article 50 or any deal signed. Does it annul any deal agreed?
It's funny, as there are these Ibtense questions on specific legality, but the legal revocability of A50 or not, and therefore the legal consequences of voting down a no deal for instance, is usually handwaved away with us and the EU coming to a political fudge solution.
So they’ve saved themselves from paying out this guy, at the price that every high-roller now knows to avoid their casino like the plague because they’ll throw lawyers at you if you win, rather than pay you out.
On sopping wet lettuce Grieve's legal challenge wibbling: to what end?
Let's say time runs out, and there's no vote in the Commons. What does a legal challenge lead to? Do we stay in? Because that's contrary to Article 50 or any deal signed. Does it annul any deal agreed?
Calm down dear, it isn't Grieve bringing the legal challenge.
As he noted
'Dominic Grieve foresees "a short necessary extension" to the March 2019 exit date to allow both sides to ratify the deal'
But I'm sure your legal experience is much superior than a former Attorney-General of England & Wales.
So they’ve saved themselves from paying out this guy, at the price that every high-roller now knows to avoid their casino like the plague because they’ll throw lawyers at you if you win, rather than pay you out.
The supreme court dealt with Brexit in a superb fashion, as every judge knew their constitutional law inside out. But you can tell none of them has ever been into a bookmakers or casino from the judgement. They are literally clueless on this matter.
@PaulBrandITV: Momentum launch campaign to unseat @Jacob_Rees_Mogg at next election in his NE Somerset seat, where he has 10k majority.
An odd choice. I presume mostly on the basis he's developed a bit of a following, so a campaign to unseat him is more newsworthy than some others
Big IF
JRM's majority is 10k, if Labour can squeeze the bejesus out of the Lib Dems & Greens, then that majority becomes 4k and only a 4% Con to Lab swing for JRM to be unseated, which is eminently possible
But I think Labour should be focusing on other seats.
On sopping wet lettuce Grieve's legal challenge wibbling: to what end?
Let's say time runs out, and there's no vote in the Commons. What does a legal challenge lead to? Do we stay in? Because that's contrary to Article 50 or any deal signed. Does it annul any deal agreed?
Calm down dear, it isn't Grieve bringing the legal challenge.
As he noted
'Dominic Grieve foresees "a short necessary extension" to the March 2019 exit date to allow both sides to ratify the deal'
But I'm sure your legal experience is much superior than a former Attorney-General of England & Wales.
An unnecessary comment just for someone questioning his legal opinion, albeit including a personal insult. Top lawyers are wrong all the time, the governments top lawyers were wrong re A50 for instance, and people with far less legal experience were right. Now that may be pure luck, from selecting the alternative from a binary option, and can't be extrapolated to future issues, but no matter the legal experience lawyers can still be hugely wrong.
On sopping wet lettuce Grieve's legal challenge wibbling: to what end?
Let's say time runs out, and there's no vote in the Commons. What does a legal challenge lead to? Do we stay in? Because that's contrary to Article 50 or any deal signed. Does it annul any deal agreed?
Calm down dear, it isn't Grieve bringing the legal challenge.
As he noted
'Dominic Grieve foresees "a short necessary extension" to the March 2019 exit date to allow both sides to ratify the deal'
But I'm sure your legal experience is much superior than a former Attorney-General of England & Wales.
An unnecessary comment just for someone questioning his legal opinion, albeit including a personal insult. Top lawyers are wrong all the time, the governments top lawyers were wrong re A50 for instance, and people with far less legal experience were right. Now that may be pure luck, from selecting the alternative from a binary option, and can't be extrapolated to future issues, but no matter the legal experience lawyers can still be hugely wrong.
@PaulBrandITV: Momentum launch campaign to unseat @Jacob_Rees_Mogg at next election in his NE Somerset seat, where he has 10k majority.
An odd choice. I presume mostly on the basis he's developed a bit of a following, so a campaign to unseat him is more newsworthy than some others
Big IF
JRM's majority is 10k, if Labour can squeeze the bejesus out of the Lib Dems & Greens, then that majority becomes 4k and only a 4% Con to Lab swing for JRM to be unseated, which is eminently possible
But I can think Labour should be focusing on other seats.
Is his constituency packed with Corbynista students, or is the Labour electorate built on the 'normal' working class population? The former gives them more chance than the latter, because Brexit.
Off topic: My colleague is being asked to declare his salary for some work in France, as well as a whole bucnh of other red tape. Seems extraordinary whilst we're in the single market, or do reciprocal arrangements exist for EU workers working in the UK - haven't heard about them if so.. Edit: Yes I know there will be a whole bunch more of this stuff post Brexit, but I'm asking about the existing arrangements...
@PaulBrandITV: Momentum launch campaign to unseat @Jacob_Rees_Mogg at next election in his NE Somerset seat, where he has 10k majority.
An odd choice. I presume mostly on the basis he's developed a bit of a following, so a campaign to unseat him is more newsworthy than some others
Big IF
JRM's majority is 10k, if Labour can squeeze the bejesus out of the Lib Dems & Greens, then that majority becomes 4k and only a 4% Con to Lab swing for JRM to be unseated, which is eminently possible
But I can think Labour should be focusing on other seats.
Is his constituency packed with Corbynista students, or is the Labour electorate built on the 'normal' working class population? The former gives them more chance than the latter, because Brexit.
Pass.
If I were targeting his seat, I'd be spinning his views on same sex marriage et al, and adding his views on (hard) Brexit.
Make it about values and potentially bad judgment.
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
Yes it's most relevant....
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference....
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
The Japanese treatment of their Korean and Manchurian subjects could be appalling. ‘Logs of wood’ was, IIRC used when they were involved in quasi-medical experiments. Edit. Not forgetting their treatment of Allied PoW’s, who in Japanese eyes had no rights, since they had surrendered.
That's interesting (and chilling!) Found this from a quick google: http://unit731.org/ - warning, it has distressing photos.
I think
I’m no expert, but didn’t the Atlantic slave trade predate the racial ‘science’, which was in a sense an effort to justify the trade
I'm not an expert either, but that is my impression too - that the Atlantic slave trade started off like any other slave system based in indenture of people who were still considered people in the full sense of the term, but later took on this particular character.
Yes, it was. In its earliest days - the early/mid-17th century - there wasn't a great difference between indentured whites and slaves. Both the nature of slavery and the distinction between whites and blacks sharpened as it became more a feature (eventually, a defining one) of the society and economy.
As an aside, one of the statues removed just this summer in the South was to Chief Justice Taney, who delivered the Dred Scott decision which stated explicitly that blacks, whether free or not, were not and could not be citizens.
It was only in1967 that Australian Aboriginies became citizens:
So they’ve saved themselves from paying out this guy, at the price that every high-roller now knows to avoid their casino like the plague because they’ll throw lawyers at you if you win, rather than pay you out.
The supreme court dealt with Brexit in a superb fashion, as every judge knew their constitutional law inside out. But you can tell none of them has ever been into a bookmakers or casino from the judgement. They are literally clueless on this matter.
Indeed so. If they suspected him of cheating, the casino should pay him out and ask him to leave - unless he’s doing something clearly illegal like switching a deck or palming cards. For a casino to be allowed to withhold his winnings is a travesty that now has a legal precident.
I’m reminded of a funny story told by Derren Brown. On the last night of his tour, the whole production team hit the casino to celebrate. Mr Brown was quickly accosted by the floor manager and security and politely escorted off the floor to the bar, but what they hadn’t noticed was the other dozen people who were his magic production team on tour - all just as skilled as Brown but not as recognisable. They had a good night.
Top lawyers are wrong all the time, the governments top lawyers were wrong re A50 for instance
I am not sure that's true.
Just because they argued the A50 case, doesn't mean they ever thought they would win...
Why would the govetnment fight it then? The solution, a short bill, was so simple and they'd already said A50 would not be declared until the spring, so fighting a case the lawyers said was hopeless bought no time or advantage. Plus since 3 justices backed then, I think there's a decent chance the gov lawyers believed their argument.
@PaulBrandITV: Momentum launch campaign to unseat @Jacob_Rees_Mogg at next election in his NE Somerset seat, where he has 10k majority.
An odd choice. I presume mostly on the basis he's developed a bit of a following, so a campaign to unseat him is more newsworthy than some others
Big IF
JRM's majority is 10k, if Labour can squeeze the bejesus out of the Lib Dems & Greens, then that majority becomes 4k and only a 4% Con to Lab swing for JRM to be unseated, which is eminently possible
But I can think Labour should be focusing on other seats.
JRM has 53.6% of the vote up from 49.8% in 2015. The LibDems got 22.3% in 2010, 7.9% in 2015 (by the now MP for Bath) and 8.3% in 2017. Labour won't take the seat and will probably go backwards.
A Linklaters report into Deutsche Boerse’s failed £21billion takeover of the London Stock Exchange reveals the key figures involved were initially given spy thriller-style code names. The deal was referred to as ‘Luna’, George Osborne was known as ‘Uncle Georg’, while LSE boss Xavier Rolet was ‘Imker’ – German for beekeeper – which I suspect was coined as a mirthful dig. Cultivated Xavier, 57, is never happier than tending to his hives on his 350-acre Provencal estate.
Comments
I am not saying Mark Price is right. I don't have any knowledge. But he is in a position to know and there is nothing inherently unbelievable about his claims, whatever you may think. If you currently trade with the UK on EU terms you may think Brexit is an opportunity to get a better deal, but equally you may think that continuing on EU terms is the easiest possible solution to cause minimum disruption to your country's trade with the UK and avoids having to enter into negotiations with the UK that could take years.
And of course no deal has to be an option. One must always be willing to walk away from any negotiation if it is not possible to achieve an outcome that is better than not having a deal at all. I hope we don't end up in that position but it should not be ruled out at this stage. See my post on negotiating 101 a few weeks ago.
I find Marx's image of 'primitive accumulation', financing industrialisation by exploiting agricultural economies, quite incisive. Provides a unifying thread from the Atlantic slave trade, through the Indian famines, through the Soviet industrialisation efforts, etc. A giant shift from the dominance of agriculture to the dominance of industry, a giant redistribution of resources by various means from unwaged agricultural worker to employer of wage labour (whether private or state).
Edit: http://www.publicseminar.org/2014/04/slavery-the-capital-that-made-capitalism/#.WfCORDBrzIU - this lists a ton of recent books on it.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4jbuk8Bes1rwkg8yo1_500.gif
However, although I was aware of the problem of the Barbary pirates, I had no idea it was this bad:
"According to Robert Davis, between 1 and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries."
Edit. Not forgetting their treatment of Allied PoW’s, who in Japanese eyes had no rights, since they had surrendered.
Edit: on checking Knox was actually a slave in French galleys. I guess that indicates the whole issue is 'complicated'.
I think it helps to illustrate what sets the Atlantic slave trade off from the Arab slave trade. Where the latter was similar to the thousands of years of slavery from antiquity onwards, the Atlantic slave trade was mixed up in this racial science, a very modern phenomenon. You can draw a line from Jefferson musing on the 'physical and moral differences' of the melanin in black skin to the experiments of Mengele and Unit 731.
Aristotle thought of slaves as "talking furniture" and like most Greeks, considered slavery to be correct, because some people were servile by nature. That argument was never advanced by Roman jurists, who did view slaves as human beings, and were willing to see freed slaves become citizens. But, in practice, slavery could be every bit as brutal in the Roman Empire as in the Greek city states.
I doubt if there was much to choose between North Africa and the Americas in terms of the treatment of slaves.
Intra-EU widget mutual tariff: zero
EU - UK widget mutual tariff: zero
EU - Farland widget mutual tariff: 10%
UK - Farland widget mutual tariff: 5%
What would happen?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B007KLKFC0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Often the Moorish slaves would be ransomed, and those that converted to Islam were often poorly treated if they returned to Britain. Hence the Lady Mico Foundation.
On topic: @AndyJS made referendum night with his spreadsheet. I am not the only one that owes him a few drinks!
Not sure whether that will apply to the next grandchild, who will be voting in elections after May 2021.
Edit sp.
*EDIT: not Peenemünde, but the relocation of it's activities to a purpose built cavern and tunnels in Austria.
As a result of this high infant and childhood death rate, the average life expectancy of a slave at birth was just 21 or 22 years, compared to 40 to 43 years for antebellum whites. Compared to whites, relatively few slaves lived into old age.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3040
OTOH, a galley slave in North Africa probably would die a lot sooner than seven years (which was probably a mercy).
He left Philip Hammond and Theresa May a golden economic inheritance.
Although I suspect no one could have made the economy Brexit proof when we formally leave in 2019.
The UK was the G7's best performing economy under his watch.
As an aside, one of the statues removed just this summer in the South was to Chief Justice Taney, who delivered the Dred Scott decision which stated explicitly that blacks, whether free or not, were not and could not be citizens.
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/923117315637604353
He discussed the history of the island and how several ‘sorts’ of slaves West African and Irish, and indentures labourers, English and Jewish. had been brought there and had, over the generaltions mingled. The only time he seemed angered by anything it was when he told us that when the slaves were eventually freed compensation was paid.
To the slave-owners!
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/on-this-day/2011/05/on-this-day-indigenous-people-get-citizenship/
It is hard to judge history by modern standards, but there are certainly past injustices.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41751208
I wasn't saying the Atlantic slave trade was necessarily worse, once you start counting victims in the millions I'm not sure there's a meaningful moral difference to be found. But it did become something different, part of a very modern narrative about the rise of capitalism, the decline of the peasantry, the modern colonial system, the accelerated industrial development of the West, the development of racial ideologies, the idea of nationalism etc. It didn't have the same functions nor justifications as the Arab slave trade.
The referendum delivered a mandate to leave, Johnson, or whoever takes up the challenge of building a new nationalist right, could say. The failure of Brexit to deliver the bright confident morning the Brexiteers promised the British is not the fault of the leave campaigners. For how could it be? How could so many politicians, influence peddlers and journalists be wrong? No. The ‘elite’ has stabbed the people in the back.
https://twitter.com/speccoffeehouse/status/923194885980803072
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-press-summary.pdf
And this is their full judgment.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-judgment.pdf
Or a Lib Dem campaign to unseat Kate Hoey.
Let's say time runs out, and there's no vote in the Commons. What does a legal challenge lead to? Do we stay in? Because that's contrary to Article 50 or any deal signed. Does it annul any deal agreed?
As he noted
'Dominic Grieve foresees "a short necessary extension" to the March 2019 exit date to allow both sides to ratify the deal'
But I'm sure your legal experience is much superior than a former Attorney-General of England & Wales.
Yeah, this pillock is going to negotiate a GREAT deal on our behalf
JRM's majority is 10k, if Labour can squeeze the bejesus out of the Lib Dems & Greens, then that majority becomes 4k and only a 4% Con to Lab swing for JRM to be unseated, which is eminently possible
But I think Labour should be focusing on other seats.
Every day as Brexit Secretary he confirms Dave was right not to bring him back into the cabinet after that vanity by election.
Just because they argued the A50 case, doesn't mean they ever thought they would win...
Edit: Yes I know there will be a whole bunch more of this stuff post Brexit, but I'm asking about the existing arrangements...
If I were targeting his seat, I'd be spinning his views on same sex marriage et al, and adding his views on (hard) Brexit.
Make it about values and potentially bad judgment.
For that matter, there are people living in the Middle East and Africa who were legally held as slaves.
I’m reminded of a funny story told by Derren Brown. On the last night of his tour, the whole production team hit the casino to celebrate. Mr Brown was quickly accosted by the floor manager and security and politely escorted off the floor to the bar, but what they hadn’t noticed was the other dozen people who were his magic production team on tour - all just as skilled as Brown but not as recognisable. They had a good night.
The LibDems got 22.3% in 2010, 7.9% in 2015 (by the now MP for Bath) and 8.3% in 2017.
Labour won't take the seat and will probably go backwards.
A Linklaters report into Deutsche Boerse’s failed £21billion takeover of the London Stock Exchange reveals the key figures involved were initially given spy thriller-style code names. The deal was referred to as ‘Luna’, George Osborne was known as ‘Uncle Georg’, while LSE boss Xavier Rolet was ‘Imker’ – German for beekeeper – which I suspect was coined as a mirthful dig. Cultivated Xavier, 57, is never happier than tending to his hives on his 350-acre Provencal estate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/comment/article-5013327/CITY-DIARY-Nicknames-used-failed-LSE-takeover.html