The EU also having a problem doesn't of itself help our farmers. Even if they wanted to keep the current regime, they are barred from doing so by WTO rules that say every country has to be treated equally. So if they opened their markets to us, they would have to do the same for Australia, Brazil etc. Being in a customs union would be helpful but the UK has said no to that.
According to the NFU study Brexit will result in an increase in income for farmers as far as sales are concerned. However it will result in a massive decrease if direct subsidies are removed. Basically Brexit is good for farmers as long as they continue to get their handouts at the current levels.
So the whole question of markets is moot in the short term. What matters is what level of subsidy farmers will get after Brexit. The same level as now and they are better off. Nothing at all and they are much worse off.
We are becoming independent and we have a budget deficit. So the spongers can sod off.
Personally I agree. But that is a separate argument to the one FF43 is making which is that the new trade relationship will inevitably be bad for UK farmers. The figures and the NFU both say the opposite.
The Saudis are looking for a war. With the country being fleeced by the extensive Royal family, getting bogged down in Yemen and their ISIS creation finally put down by Iran and Russia: like all imperialist powers they are looking for a distraction - start a war. The easy one - start a civil war in the Lebanon.
The Saudis are an inefficient lot. Thinking simply, they thought bankrolling their wahabi sidekicks , ISIS will create a Sunni bastion in Iraq and Syria. How did that one end ?
Mr. L, I thought the Riyadh missile was Iranian-made but fired by rebels in Yemen, not fired from Iran. Or do I have that wrong?
I think that's right but who actually had the technical capacity to aim and fire it? Much more likely to be Iranian "volunteers" than rebel tribesmen. Where's @Yokel when we need him?
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
The EU also having a problem doesn't of itself help our farmers. Even if they wanted to keep the current regime, they are barred from doing so by WTO rules that say every country has to be treated equally. So if they opened their markets to us, they would have to do the same for Australia, Brazil etc. Being in a customs union would be helpful but the UK has said no to that.
According to the NFU study Brexit will result in an increase in income for farmers as far as sales are concerned. However it will result in a massive decrease if direct subsidies are removed. Basically Brexit is good for farmers as long as they continue to get their handouts at the current levels.
So the whole question of markets is moot in the short term. What matters is what level of subsidy farmers will get after Brexit. The same level as now and they are better off. Nothing at all and they are much worse off.
We are becoming independent and we have a budget deficit. So the spongers can sod off.
Personally I agree. But that is a separate argument to the one FF43 is making which is that the new trade relationship will inevitably be bad for UK farmers. The figures and the NFU both say the opposite.
In a sense, it will because produce from cheaper producing countries: Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada , Argentina will flood in. These countries have all shown interest in having trade deals with the UK. You bet they are not going to roll over their terms of trade with the EU to the UK. They will want better exporting opportunities for their produce. Why shouldn't they ? They all know the UK will be desperate to sign trade deals.
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.
Mr. L, I thought the Riyadh missile was Iranian-made but fired by rebels in Yemen, not fired from Iran. Or do I have that wrong?
I think that's right but who actually had the technical capacity to aim and fire it? Much more likely to be Iranian "volunteers" than rebel tribesmen. Where's @Yokel when we need him?
I didn't realise those missile defence systems actually worked.
If he brings her back in triumph do they get to choose our PM?
In all seriousness does Iran not have rather larger fish to fry right now?
Yes, they very much do. However, it's not quite that simple, because the power structures are diffuse and opaque, and those concentrating on frying large fish might not be those who get to decide on the fate of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
That missile aimed at Riyadh story is just weird and frankly alarming. You wonder if their leadership has control of their armed forces, let alone their judiciary.
Iran did not fire the missile. Iran is not North Korea.
Does "wrong to leave" mean "wrong to leave but we should still respect the outcome of the referendum" or does it mean "wrong to leave and we should not leave despite the referendum result"?
Mr. L, I thought the Riyadh missile was Iranian-made but fired by rebels in Yemen, not fired from Iran. Or do I have that wrong?
I think that's right but who actually had the technical capacity to aim and fire it? Much more likely to be Iranian "volunteers" than rebel tribesmen. Where's @Yokel when we need him?
I didn't realise those missile defence systems actually worked.
I bet the Americans are seriously chuffed and the South Koreans may well be taking some comfort too.
If he brings her back in triumph do they get to choose our PM?
In all seriousness does Iran not have rather larger fish to fry right now?
Yes, they very much do. However, it's not quite that simple, because the power structures are diffuse and opaque, and those concentrating on frying large fish might not be those who get to decide on the fate of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
That missile aimed at Riyadh story is just weird and frankly alarming. You wonder if their leadership has control of their armed forces, let alone their judiciary.
Iran did not fire the missile. Iran is not North Korea.
The second point is unarguable. The first...not so much.
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
And when the I-can't-believe-it's-not-the-IRA starts targeting the spot checks?
So basically Iran gets to choose our Foreign Secretary? How did we end up here...
Boris got us here.
Say Boris had been convicted of a serious offence by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, would you say that his position was secure because otherwise country x was getting to choose our foreign sec? If not how is this different?
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
The trade with the rUK figure is a bit misleading, unfortunately, as it's dominated by public sector procurement contracts. For private sector-to-private sector it's about 60:40 between rUK and the Republic, and - of course - the closer you get to the Border, the more than number shifts away from us.
So basically Iran gets to choose our Foreign Secretary? How did we end up here...
Boris got us here.
Say Boris had been convicted of a serious offence by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, would you say that his position was secure because otherwise country x was getting to choose our foreign sec? If not how is this different?
TM should fire him or keep him irregardless of whether this Iranian crisis has a happy ending.
Edit:
I think your analogy doesn't work - because it matters whether Boris is convicted or not, to determine whether he did the serious offence or not.
Whereas there is no doubt that he said what he said.
Does "wrong to leave" mean "wrong to leave but we should still respect the outcome of the referendum" or does it mean "wrong to leave and we should not leave despite the referendum result"?
I don't think it means either: the question is as put. Implicitly, it means 'if we'd not had the referendum, then knowing what you know now, how would you vote if there was a referendum tomorrow?'.
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.
Any refs for that bit about Brythonic grammar? I'd not heard that before.
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
And when the I-can't-believe-it's-not-the-IRA starts targeting the spot checks?
So our new policy is to let the IRA decide what we do?
Presumably we'd make sure customs centres would be co-owned with the Republic and staffed 50:50.
The real danger with Northern Ireland is not a few customs checks. It's that we have a cliff edge Brexit where cross border trade essentially freezes up. Trade with the EU is something like 20% of GDP in Northern Ireland, so it's a massively higher percentage than in rUK, and the this leads to a very serious Northern Irish recession.
I think Nationalist pressure in Northern Ireland combined with Unionist anger at the British government for failing to secure a deal could have very serious consequences.
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
And when the I-can't-believe-it's-not-the-IRA starts targeting the spot checks?
So our new policy is to let the IRA decide what we do?
Seems fair when the DUP is also deciding what we do.
I believe it is one of the terms of The Good Friday Agreement,
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
We don’t know what will be implemented. That’s the problem. The worse case scenario is a lot worse than the Swiss border, which is as it is thanks to a deal with the EU the government has explicitly rejected.
So basically Iran gets to choose our Foreign Secretary? How did we end up here...
Boris got us here.
Say Boris had been convicted of a serious offence by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, would you say that his position was secure because otherwise country x was getting to choose our foreign sec? If not how is this different?
TM should fire him or keep him irregardless of whether this Iranian crisis has a happy ending.
Edit:
I think your analogy doesn't work - because it matters whether Boris is convicted or not, to determine whether he did the serious offence or not.
Whereas there is no doubt that he said what he said.
Fire him regardless works for me. The question is sometimes asked whether anyone here ever change their mind about anything. I have bloody changed my mind about him.
F1: second practice about to get underway. This is the same sort of time that qualifying and the race will start so will perhaps be the best indicator of race pace.
Bit early, but I'm off now. As I said before, pre-qualifying ramble will hopefully be up tomorrow afternoon.
So basically Iran gets to choose our Foreign Secretary? How did we end up here...
Boris got us here.
Say Boris had been convicted of a serious offence by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, would you say that his position was secure because otherwise country x was getting to choose our foreign sec? If not how is this different?
TM should fire him or keep him irregardless of whether this Iranian crisis has a happy ending.
Edit:
I think your analogy doesn't work - because it matters whether Boris is convicted or not, to determine whether he did the serious offence or not.
Whereas there is no doubt that he said what he said.
Fire him regardless works for me. The question is sometimes asked whether anyone here ever change their mind about anything. I have bloody changed my mind about him.
Yes I agree - I'd fire him regardless. To use a football analogy, there have just been too many fouls not to have a second yellow. TM appears to be waiting for the straight red, horror tackle to avoid any argument and properly bury his leadership chances.
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.
I don't understand why Lord Kerr thinks as he does about withdrawal of the Article 50 notification. What he says is:
First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, Mrs. May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.
“The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted declaring an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.
However, Article 50 doesn't say that the notice is of our 'intention' to withdraw. (We made clear our 'intention' the day after the referendum). It talks of the notice being about our 'decision' to withdraw. That's a big difference.
Yes it does.
Article 50(2): "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. ..."
Which unhelpfully conflates the two different things - but it doesn't really matter because despite what Lord Kerr says, that's not the crucial clause. The crucial one is 50(3):
Article 50(3): "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
And the crucial phase is "shall cease to apply". There is no 'unless' there; there is no provision for revoking notification; it is absolute - shall cease to apply. There's nothing to prevent a country from notifying a decision to not withdraw but it would have no effective standing because Article 50(3) would still apply.
The decisive event is the notification, not the intent that might have gone into it.
My mistake, and, yes you are right about 50(3).
Edit: Further, your interpretation is made even stronger by the presence of an 'unless' in relation to extending the period.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
So basically Iran gets to choose our Foreign Secretary? How did we end up here...
Boris got us here.
Say Boris had been convicted of a serious offence by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, would you say that his position was secure because otherwise country x was getting to choose our foreign sec? If not how is this different?
TM should fire him or keep him irregardless of whether this Iranian crisis has a happy ending.
Edit:
I think your analogy doesn't work - because it matters whether Boris is convicted or not, to determine whether he did the serious offence or not.
Whereas there is no doubt that he said what he said.
Fire him regardless works for me. The question is sometimes asked whether anyone here ever change their mind about anything. I have bloody changed my mind about him.
Yes I agree - I'd fire him regardless. To use a football analogy, there have just been too many fouls not to have a second yellow. TM appears to be waiting for the straight red, horror tackle to avoid any argument and properly bury his leadership chances.
She might of course be quite happy letting him keep digging, given the risks of the alternative? His career prospects have been in decline ever since he got the job.
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.
Any refs for that bit about Brythonic grammar? I'd not heard that before.
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
What is notable is the lack of direct Roman influence, considering that England was a Roman province (or provinces) for roughly the same time as it was under Saxon rule. To the extent that Latin is an influence, it seems to be overwhelmingly from the Norman era rather than the Roman.
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.
Any refs for that bit about Brythonic grammar? I'd not heard that before.
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Isn’t the genetic evidence suggesting that plenty of people in Eastern England have lines which go back beyond Saxon times. IIRC Tacitus said something about the language in SE Britain.... the bit the Romans got to first .....being similar to that spoken in what is now Belguim and N France.Which was about as far up the North Sea cost as the Romans reached.
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at least
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
If anyone is still in the slightest bit interested in farmers' incomes after Brexit, this table from the NFU sets it out more clearly.
The probable outcome is a hybrid of columns 2 and 3. The tricky thing for prediction is that a column 2 prediction increases incomes (except for sheep and crops) while a column 3 prediction decreases it. Beef farmers could see their incomes increase by 29% or decrease by 50%, leaving aside reductions in farm support and increases in wage costs. In my view it will likely be more 3 than 2, so farm incomes will decrease somewhat overall.
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.
Any refs for that bit about Brythonic grammar? I'd not heard that before.
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Isn’t the genetic evidence suggesting that plenty of people in Eastern England have lines which go back beyond Saxon times. IIRC Tacitus said something about the language in SE Britain.... the bit the Romans got to first .....being similar to that spoken in what is now Belguim and N France.Which was about as far up the North Sea cost as the Romans reached.
Another subject of current debate. Personally I find that the theory that the people living in the SE before the Angles and Saxons pitched up here were themselves of Germanic rather than 'Celtic' origin does resolve many of the mysteries being debated when I studied Anglo-Saxon history as a student.
Isn’t the genetic evidence suggesting that plenty of people in Eastern England have lines which go back beyond Saxon times. IIRC Tacitus said something about the language in SE Britain.... the bit the Romans got to first .....being similar to that spoken in what is now Belguim and N France.Which was about as far up the North Sea cost as the Romans reached.
Yep. But more important than the DNA evidence is the isotope analysis which can show where people were born and grew up.
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at least
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.
Certainly there is debate. Which is why the certainty expressed in your earlier contribution is misplaced. The almost total absence of Celtic stones and inscriptions in SE England coupled with barely any place names (other than principal rivers) having Celtic roots is difficult to explain if indeed a few elite Saxons took over a Celtic population.
Another subject of current debate. Personally I find that the theory that the people living in the SE before the Angles and Saxons pitched up here were themselves of Germanic rather than 'Celtic' origin does resolve many of the mysteries being debated when I studied Anglo-Saxon history as a student.
Shame it doesn't match the evidence from the Sub-RB sites I have been excavating for the last 30 years.
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at least
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.
Modern UK DNA is by far the strongest evidence of elite takeover. In terms of place names, that’s very much about control of written language. The elite had that via the clergy and royal officials.
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at least
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.
Do you have any favourite articles you'd recommend reading on this?
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.
You do have to wonder if they realise how much more entrenched Brexit will become as all these privileged Metropolitan elite declare their abiding love for the EU and attempt to stop Brexit
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at least
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.
Certainly there is debate. Which is why the certainty expressed in your earlier contribution is misplaced. The almost total absence of Celtic stones and inscriptions in SE England coupled with barely any place names (other than principal rivers) having Celtic roots is difficult to explain if indeed a few elite Saxons took over a Celtic population.
Not really. There is a distinct lack of post Roman Celtic inscription in any of the areas that had previously been occupied by the Romans. More importantly there is a distinct lack of such inscriptions dating from the Roman period either. If they didn't survive 400 years of Roman occupation they ate hardly likely to.pop up again afterwards.
Isn’t the genetic evidence suggesting that plenty of people in Eastern England have lines which go back beyond Saxon times. IIRC Tacitus said something about the language in SE Britain.... the bit the Romans got to first .....being similar to that spoken in what is now Belguim and N France.Which was about as far up the North Sea cost as the Romans reached.
Yep. But more important than the DNA evidence is the isotope analysis which can show where people were born and grew up.
Indeed. There’s the famous case of the guy at Stonehenge.
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.
She was highly political and part of today's remain campaign that the process can be reversed. Whether or not that is true it is not acceptable politically
So basically Iran gets to choose our Foreign Secretary? How did we end up here...
It is not a case of the Iranians choosing whether Boris stays or goes, if he is sacked it will be through his own monumental incompetence and his weasel-worded attempt to absolve himself of any blame over the issue.
If he stays, the only explanation is that the whole episode was a splendid ruse to bamboozle the Iranians into freeing Mrs Ratcliffe.
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.
She was highly political and part of today's remain campaign that the process can be reversed. Whether or not that is true it is not acceptable politically
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.
She was highly political and part of today's remain campaign that the process can be reversed. Whether or not that is true it is not acceptable politically
Democracy means any decision can be reversed.
Agreed but do you really think that will happen this side of Brexit
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.
She was highly political and part of today's remain campaign that the process can be reversed. Whether or not that is true it is not acceptable politically
Democracy means any decision can be reversed.
Agreed but do you really think that will happen this side of Brexit
A very small possibility of it happening.
Would require a Damascene conversion by two of David Davis, Boris Johnson, or Michael Gove.
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.
The endgame is approaching...
Source please
The FT reported yesterday that there had been a private climb down but at lunchtime Barnier said unless more dosh was on the table in two weeks there would be no further progress. So either there has not been a climb down or whatever offer has been made is not large enough. Which means May is now completely boxed in - she can either concede more cash or see her hopes of a trade deal dashed. Within the next fortnight.
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.
The endgame is approaching...
Source please
The FT reported yesterday that there had been a private climb down but at lunchtime Barnier said unless more dosh was on the table in two weeks there would be no further progress. So either there has not been a climb down or whatever offer has been made is not large enough. Which means May is now completely boxed in - she can either concede more cash or see her hopes of a trade deal dashed. Within the next fortnight.
Quick - send Priti on holiday to Brussels to freelance a deal. I hear she has time on her hands.
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at least
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.
Certainly there is debate. Which is why the certainty expressed in your earlier contribution is misplaced. The almost total absence of Celtic stones and inscriptions in SE England coupled with barely any place names (other than principal rivers) having Celtic roots is difficult to explain if indeed a few elite Saxons took over a Celtic population.
Not really. There is a distinct lack of post Roman Celtic inscription in any of the areas that had previously been occupied by the Romans. More importantly there is a distinct lack of such inscriptions dating from the Roman period either. If they didn't survive 400 years of Roman occupation they ate hardly likely to.pop up again afterwards.
So the Celts and the Romano-Celts didn't particularly go in for stones and inscriptions, then.
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.
The endgame is approaching...
Source please
The FT reported yesterday that there had been a private climb down but at lunchtime Barnier said unless more dosh was on the table in two weeks there would be no further progress. So either there has not been a climb down or whatever offer has been made is not large enough. Which means May is now completely boxed in - she can either concede more cash or see her hopes of a trade deal dashed. Within the next fortnight.
I got the idea from Davis' speech earlier today (reported on BBC WATO) that he doesn't intend to concede anything that he hasn't already compromised over, which as I recall appears to be the sum total of zip!
Comments
The Saudis are an inefficient lot. Thinking simply, they thought bankrolling their wahabi sidekicks , ISIS will create a Sunni bastion in Iraq and Syria. How did that one end ?
https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/11/09/is-there-more-to-trumps-thumbs-up-picture/
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/53374.wss
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
Say Boris had been convicted of a serious offence by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction, would you say that his position was secure because otherwise country x was getting to choose our foreign sec? If not how is this different?
Edit:
I think your analogy doesn't work - because it matters whether Boris is convicted or not, to determine whether he did the serious offence or not.
Whereas there is no doubt that he said what he said.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Presumably we'd make sure customs centres would be co-owned with the Republic and staffed 50:50.
The real danger with Northern Ireland is not a few customs checks. It's that we have a cliff edge Brexit where cross border trade essentially freezes up. Trade with the EU is something like 20% of GDP in Northern Ireland, so it's a massively higher percentage than in rUK, and the this leads to a very serious Northern Irish recession.
I think Nationalist pressure in Northern Ireland combined with Unionist anger at the British government for failing to secure a deal could have very serious consequences.
Fortunately, I think a deal will be reached.
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=crude-oil-brent&months=60¤cy=gbp
I believe it is one of the terms of The Good Friday Agreement,
Bit early, but I'm off now. As I said before, pre-qualifying ramble will hopefully be up tomorrow afternoon.
To use a football analogy, there have just been too many fouls not to have a second yellow.
TM appears to be waiting for the straight red, horror tackle to avoid any argument and properly bury his leadership chances.
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2017/09/24/is-no-deal-better-than-a-bad-deal-irish-edition/
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
IIRC Tacitus said something about the language in SE Britain.... the bit the Romans got to first .....being similar to that spoken in what is now Belguim and N France.Which was about as far up the North Sea cost as the Romans reached.
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
The probable outcome is a hybrid of columns 2 and 3. The tricky thing for prediction is that a column 2 prediction increases incomes (except for sheep and crops) while a column 3 prediction decreases it. Beef farmers could see their incomes increase by 29% or decrease by 50%, leaving aside reductions in farm support and increases in wage costs. In my view it will likely be more 3 than 2, so farm incomes will decrease somewhat overall.
(Though how anyone would beat Roger...)
I think the thread were I said don't back Donald Trump at 150/1 to be the next President might be number 1
I think my thread from a few weeks ago tipping Sir Michael Fallon as next PM is worthy of mention in dispatches.
You do have to wonder if they realise how much more entrenched Brexit will become as all these privileged Metropolitan elite declare their abiding love for the EU and attempt to stop Brexit
Makes you wonder what she was doing with Mr Clegg.
The endgame is approaching...
If he stays, the only explanation is that the whole episode was a splendid ruse to bamboozle the Iranians into freeing Mrs Ratcliffe.
WARNING! Do not watch if you are of a delicate disposition.
Would require a Damascene conversion by two of David Davis, Boris Johnson, or Michael Gove.
Someone who now checks the sky carefully before they venture out.