Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.
May has already agreed to no infrastructure and no checks which surely rules out a technical solution, despite any impression the government is trying to give that the matter is still open.
No she has not - much as you would like. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.
That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?
I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).
My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... )
Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.
Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales
Quick way to assist leave in spades
The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.
The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.
Hence fury with the EU if this actually happens
Suspect the 'fury with the EU' is only amongst those who were always looking for reasons to be furious with the EU. Given we are currently in the single market, I cannot see how we could face different tariffs than other EU countries. The problem is of Trump's creation, not the EU's.
True. But chances are in this n other circumstances would have no problem with us.
One of the positives about Corbyns Brexit policy is that it does not mean sucking up to bullies like Trump. It is about having the ability to protect our industries, such as Welsh steel. Far better a Corbyns Brexit than a Hannanite one.
I take your point, and it’s better than other alternatives for sure, but it still involves putting a wall around us and about 7% of the world, to the exclusion of the other 93%. The 93% is going to define the 21st century. Better to get involved, than clinging to the 21st century Austria Hungarian empire. In my view at the least. Others may differ.
I am no EUphile but the EU as a whole is ahead of China in second place to the USA in gdp terms at the moment with Japan well behind those 3 in 4th place.
I agree. It's (from the UK perspective) a storm in a teacup. Our total steel exports to the US (of all types) amounts to £360m odd, which is ~0.3% of our total exports to the USA, and ~0.06% of our total exports.
What's more worrying is that it derails the free trade narrative that Fox keeps peddling (which is odd, given the UK's economy is service based, and extant FTAs don't generally address services in anything more than a rudimentary manner).
In terms of NI border, we should have assumed WTO and started digging ditches and building lorry parks 18 months ago. It may not be soluble, as it's clearly a political, rather than a logistical issue.
Switzerland manages without those, and it has borders with Germany, France, Italy and Austria. If it can be done in Switzerland, a nation which exports a lot more in terms of its GDP than Ireland or the UK, then it can be done at the Irish border.
As I said, I'm genuinely confused as to why this has turned into such a big deal. There will be no travel restrictions, which is people's biggest fear and the UK can unilaterally allow Irish citizens the right to resettle in the UK and vice versa, just as Ireland does now for anyone born in NI.
A customs border really isn't a big deal, definitely not as big a deal as is being made out at the moment. If a real border crossing was being suggested then I could understand the issues, but no one has suggested that Ireland will leave the CTA, have they?
The Swiss haven't had an insurgency in recent decades. I agree it's overblown - the GFA is being treated as if Moses had tottered down from the mount with it graven on tablets of stone.
However, for those of us who remember playing Chris Crawford's 'Balance of Power', minor issues can derail any political process.
If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.
That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?
I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).
My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... )
Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.
May has already agreed to no infrastructure and no checks which surely rules out a technical solution, despite any impression the government is trying to give that the matter is still open.
Where is the evidence we will get an exemption and the EU won't? Trump does not believe in Free Trade. He ran on an openly protectionist programme. There is little evidence he sets much store by NATO either. Several guns are being jumped here. If we want an exemption we will need to give something, and it will not be what we already do. That is not the way the Trump racket works.
I agree. It's (from the UK perspective) a storm in a teacup. Our total steel exports to the US (of all types) amounts to £360m odd, which is ~0.3% of our total exports to the USA, and ~0.06% of our total exports.
What's more worrying is that it derails the free trade narrative that Fox keeps peddling (which is odd, given the UK's economy is service based, and extant FTAs don't generally address services in anything more than a rudimentary manner).
In terms of NI border, we should have assumed WTO and started digging ditches and building lorry parks 18 months ago. It may not be soluble, as it's clearly a political, rather than a logistical issue.
Switzerland manages without those, and it has borders with Germany, France, Italy and Austria. If it can be done in Switzerland, a nation which exports a lot more in terms of its GDP than Ireland or the UK, then it can be done at the Irish border.
As I said, I'm genuinely confused as to why this has turned into such a big deal. There will be no travel restrictions, which is people's biggest fear and the UK can unilaterally allow Irish citizens the right to resettle in the UK and vice versa, just as Ireland does now for anyone born in NI.
A customs border really isn't a big deal, definitely not as big a deal as is being made out at the moment. If a real border crossing was being suggested then I could understand the issues, but no one has suggested that Ireland will leave the CTA, have they?
The Swiss haven't had an insurgency in recent decades. I agree it's overblown - the GFA is being treated as if Moses had tottered down from the mount with it graven on tablets of stone.
However, for those of us who remember playing Chris Crawford's 'Balance of Power', minor issues can derail any political process.
If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.
can you roll over in a ditch?
not sure if this is one to die in a ditch over.
so fuck off it is then
Not really TMay's style is it? - a roll-over is more likely imho.
Where is the evidence we will get an exemption and the EU won't? Trump does not believe in Free Trade. He ran on an openly protectionist programme. There is little evidence he sets much store by NATO either. Several guns are being jumped here. If we want an exemption we will need to give something, and it will not be what we already do. That is not the way the Trump racket works.
If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.
May has already agreed to no infrastructure and no checks which surely rules out a technical solution, despite any impression the government is trying to give that the matter is still open.
So that’s the sound of a cheque for 39bn being torn up I can hear, ooh and a hard Irish border on the EU side ( ‘cos we’ve said we’re not going to impose anything anyway)? So that will be Varadkar’s pyrhic “victory”?.
I agree. It's (from the UK perspective) a storm in a teacup. Our total steel exports to the US (of all types) amounts to £360m odd, which is ~0.3% of our total exports to the USA, and ~0.06% of our total exports.
What's more worrying is that it derails the free trade narrative that Fox keeps peddling (which is odd, given the UK's economy is service based, and extant FTAs don't generally address services in anything more than a rudimentary manner).
In terms of NI border, we should have assumed WTO and started digging ditches and building lorry parks 18 months ago. It may not be soluble, as it's clearly a political, rather than a logistical issue.
Switzerland manages without those, and it has borders with Germany, France, Italy and Austria. If it can be done in Switzerland, a nation which exports a lot more in terms of its GDP than Ireland or the UK, then it can be done at the Irish border.
As I said, I'm genuinely confused as to why this has turned into such a big deal. There will be no travel restrictions, which is people's biggest fear and the UK can unilaterally allow Irish citizens the right to resettle in the UK and vice versa, just as Ireland does now for anyone born in NI.
A customs border really isn't a big deal, definitely not as big a deal as is being made out at the moment. If a real border crossing was being suggested then I could understand the issues, but no one has suggested that Ireland will leave the CTA, have they?
The Swiss haven't had an insurgency in recent decades. I agree it's overblown - the GFA is being treated as if Moses had tottered down from the mount with it graven on tablets of stone.
However, for those of us who remember playing Chris Crawford's 'Balance of Power', minor issues can derail any political process.
If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.
can you roll over in a ditch?
not sure if this is one to die in a ditch over.
so fuck off it is then
Not really TMay's style is it? - a roll-over is more likely imho.
May has never seen a can she didn't want to kick down the road. Sadly, this is no longer an option. Honestly, I have no idea what she's going to do. She has to negotiate with one hand while holding a sack of warring ferrets in the other.
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.
That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?
I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).
My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... )
Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
You can't fly a hospital. What is wrong with you?
I dunno what's wrong with me - but I'd rather have a hospital to help me find out than a Typhoon jet.
Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.
Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales
Quick way to assist leave in spades
The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.
The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.
Hence fury with the EU if this actually happens
Suspe's.
True. But chances are in this n other circumstances would have no problem with us.
One of the positives about Corbyns Brexit policy is that it does not mean sucking up to bullies like Trump. It is about having the ability to protect our industries, such as Welsh steel. Far better a Corbyns Brexit than a Hannanite one.
I take your point, and it’s better than other alternatives for sure, but it still involves putting a wall around us and about 7% of the world, to the exclusion of the other 93%. The 93% is going to define the 21st century. Better to get involved, than clinging to the 21st century Austria Hungarian empire. In my view at the least. Others may differ.
I am no EUphile but the EU as a whole is ahead of China in second place to the USA in gdp terms at the moment with Japan well behind those 3 in 4th place.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.
That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?
I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).
My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... )
Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
I have a philosophical difference with the stance of UK opinion-formers post-Iraq War that "the world is difficult so let's resile from it and concentrate on domestic matters instead". I think such a stance is juvenile, ahistorical and doomed to failure. That isolationist stance occurs amongst many people and is not necessarily left/right nor Remain/Leave, though it was bought into sharp focus by Brexit. I think a strong defence is necessary for the life of comparative ease we lead and the concept that it can be continually cut is dangerous.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
She was Yvette Cooper and that means her comments were fair game, given Labour party policy and her position within the then Labour government.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.
That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?
I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).
My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... )
Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
I have a philosophical difference with the stance of UK opinion-formers post-Iraq War that "the world is difficult so let's resile from it and concentrate on domestic matters instead". I think such a stance is juvenile, ahistorical and doomed to failure. That isolationist stance occurs amongst many people and is not necessarily left/right nor Remain/Leave, though it was bought into sharp focus by Brexit. I think a strong defence is necessary for the life of comparative ease we lead and the concept that it can be continually cut is dangerous.
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.
That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?
I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).
My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... )
Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
The Swiss haven't had an insurgency in recent decades. I agree it's overblown - the GFA is being treated as if Moses had tottered down from the mount with it graven on tablets of stone.
However, for those of us who remember playing Chris Crawford's 'Balance of Power', minor issues can derail any political process.
If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.
I think it can be today. After 20 years of peace, does anyone on either side of the border want to pick up their rifles again?
A customs border isn't going impinge on people's ability to travel or settle on either side of the border. It is to ensure that certain goods have the right tariffs charged on them when they are imported. No more, no less. Additionally, there is already a personal customs border for fags and booze given the differing rates of duty applied in NI vs RoI. So I'll say it again, what difference is it really going to make?
In Theresa's position I'd tell Varadkar to go and fuck off, if he wants to hold up Brexit or force us into a WTO Brexit then he's really only damaging his own country.
TBF, the EU/Ireland are only holding Theresa May to what she already committed to in December. Also TBF, the option 3 backstop measures in the draft agreement are limited to border-related matters which are pretty much a bilateral GFA issue before Brexit anyway. It is a strange matter, but everything to do with Northern Ireland is strange, including Northern Ireland itself. Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.
That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?
I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).
Don't confuse activity with progress. The UK sends new Typhoons straight off the FAL into RTP (reduce to produce, essentially spare part recovery) which is coyly described as 'storage' at Coningsby.
So while we spend an incredible amount of money on the RAF we don't get a commensurate fighting service out of the other end.
Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.
It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.
It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
Things would be worse for Ireland apart from the border without a deal. The border wouldn't be worse. The Irish border is tricky, not least because the government is held over a barrel by the DUP. But it is the only major thing holding up the Withdrawal Agreement. I expect something to be worked out. The EU/Irish want to make it clear that "Yeah, yeah and then let's forget about it." isn't going to fly.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
No, he was an absolute arse on here - and I know stuff he did outside of this forum as bad if not worse.
Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.
It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
Things would be worse for Ireland apart from the border without a deal. The border wouldn't be worse. The Irish border is tricky, not least because the government is held over a barrel by the DUP. But it is the only major thing holding up the Withdrawal Agreement. I expect something to be worked out. The EU/Irish want to make it clear that "Yeah, yeah and then let's forget about it." isn't going to fly.
There are only two solutions, a border between Ulster and the Republic, or a border along the Irish Sea. The first will be totally ignored by both North and South peoples, the second, because due to cut backs in the RN and Coastguard, by every one else.
Watford most closely matched the GB vote shares at the last election. (Bedford on the other hand has reflected the national swing most accurately over the last 3 elections. I posted the sheet for that a few days ago).
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.
Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.
I do wonder what Starmer and Umunna make of what Corbyn said on Brexit, and how it has been received? Starmer at least must have had some significant input, but it has added no material clarity to Labour's position. Where do the Remainers in Labour go from here?
Most Remainers vote Labour to stop the Tories. As long as a Labour Brexit gives the impression of being slightly less reactionary than a Tory one that is likely to continue. But any Remainer who believes Corbyn is anything other than deeply anti-EU is a fool.
I agree. It's (from the UK perspective) a storm in a teacup. Our total steel exports to the US (of all types) amounts to £360m odd, which is ~0.3% of our total exports to the USA, and ~0.06% of our total exports.
What's more worrying is that it derails the free trade narrative that Fox keeps peddling (which is odd, given the UK's economy is service based, and extant FTAs don't generally address services in anything more than a rudimentary manner).
In terms of NI border, we should have assumed WTO and started digging ditches and building lorry parks 18 months ago. It may not be soluble, as it's clearly a political, rather than a logistical issue.
Switzerland manages without those, and it has borders with Germany, France, Italy and Austria. If it can be done in Switzerland, a nation which exports a lot more in terms of its GDP than Ireland or the UK, then it can be done at the Irish border.
As I said, I'm genuinely confused as to why this has turned into such a big deal. There will be no travel restrictions, which is people's biggest fear and the UK can unilaterally allow Irish citizens the right to resettle in the UK and vice versa, just as Ireland does now for anyone born in NI.
A customs border really isn't a big deal, definitely not as big a deal as is being made out at the moment. If a real border crossing was being suggested then I could understand the issues, but no one has suggested that Ireland will leave the CTA, have they?
The Swiss haven't had an insurgency in recent decades. I agree it's overblown - the GFA is being treated as if Moses had tottered down from the mount with it graven on tablets of stone.
[snip]
There are also a lot of things being asserted as being part of the GFA which simply aren't there, or which are - at best - optimistic interpretations of inferences from the Agreement.
Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.
It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.
Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.
Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.
It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.
That depends what a bad deal looks like. Britain's trade with Ireland is huge: in 2016, £26.7bn of exports and £20.8bn of imports. There are only seven countries in the world that Britain imports more from, and only four that it exports more to. But if those numbers are big for the UK, they're gargantuan for Ireland, which has a population only about 1/14th that of the UK. The most that Britain imports from any country is the £75bn from Germany, and the most we export to is the £100bn to the US. Pro rata up the Anglo-Irish trade from the Irish side, and the UK is something like four times more important to Ireland than Britain's largest trading partners are to it.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.
Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.
To be fair Australia is probably the USA's closet ally, even closer than the UK.
It has fought with the USA in all its wars over the last century, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq so not surprising the USA will be a bit more lenient to its closet allies, especially as it is really Chinese and Mexican and to a lesser extent German steel and aluminium imports it is really focused on
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.
Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.
I hope for Twitter's sake he has curbed his misogyny there. Because it was a very clear part of his posting personality on here. Troubling that you couldn't see it.
Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.
It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.
That depends what a bad deal looks like. Britain's trade with Ireland is huge: in 2016, £26.7bn of exports and £20.8bn of imports. There are only seven countries in the world that Britain imports more from, and only four that it exports more to. But if those numbers are big for the UK, they're gargantuan for Ireland, which has a population only about 1/14th that of the UK. The most that Britain imports from any country is the £75bn from Germany, and the most we export to is the £100bn to the US. Pro rata up the Anglo-Irish trade from the Irish side, and the UK is something like four times more important to Ireland than Britain's largest trading partners are to it.
15% of Irish exports go to the UK. Around 50% of UK exports go to the EU. If the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal we lose access to and membership of hundreds of international agreements. Ireland keeps everything. A no deal Brexit is not a sustainable solution for the UK, so we would have to return to the negotiating table. So, short term pain for Ireland would probably lead to a longer term gain. Agreeing a sub-optimal deal, on the other hand, would be disadvantageous over the long term.
Corbyn is tactically correct as remainers have nowhere else to go. . While the headline figure of Lab leavers might only be 21% of total Lab voters you can add to that the type of floating voter who might vote Tory or Ukip until they are certain Brexit will go ahead. Once they have that certainty they may well revert to Labour especially as other issues come to the fore.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.
Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.
I hope for Twitter's sake he has curbed his misogyny there. Because it was a very clear part of his posting personality on here. Troubling that you couldn't see it.
I could not see it because it wasn’t there. It was an accusation thrown at him from time to tome by people who had no other way of arguing with him. Fools, hypocrites and racists should not be immune to criticism just because they are women.
To be fair Australia is probably the USA's closet ally, even closer than the UK.
It has fought with the USA in all its wars over the last century, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq so not surprising the USA will be a bit more lenient to its closet allies, especially as it is really Chinese and Mexican and to a lesser extent German steel and aluminium imports it is really focused on
Yep, if the Aussies do what Trump tells them to do they’ll be spared sanctions. That’s the way to treat your closest allies!! But the Aussie right, like the UK right, looks like it is happy to do the President’s bidding.
It has fought with the USA in all its wars over the last century, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq so not surprising the USA will be a bit more lenient to its closet allies, especially as it is really Chinese and Mexican and to a lesser extent German steel and aluminium imports it is really focused on
What choice does Australia have? It's a sparsely populated and resource rich country in a rough neighbourhood. The fall of Singapore amply demonstrated lack of British capability to defend it so a pivot to the US on defence and security matters was the only viable option.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.
That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?
I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).
My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... )
Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
You can't fly a hospital. What is wrong with you?
Can I recommend you read Why Hospitals Should Fly by Nance, 2008
Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.
It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.
That depends what a bad deal looks like. Britain's trade with Ireland is huge: in 2016, £26.7bn of exports and £20.8bn of imports. There are only seven countries in the world that Britain imports more from, and only four that it exports more to. But if those numbers are big for the UK, they're gargantuan for Ireland, which has a population only about 1/14th that of the UK. The most that Britain imports from any country is the £75bn from Germany, and the most we export to is the £100bn to the US. Pro rata up the Anglo-Irish trade from the Irish side, and the UK is something like four times more important to Ireland than Britain's largest trading partners are to it.
15% of Irish exports go to the UK. Around 50% of UK exports go to the EU. If the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal we lose access to and membership of hundreds of international agreements. Ireland keeps everything. A no deal Brexit is not a sustainable solution for the UK, so we would have to return to the negotiating table. So, short term pain for Ireland would probably lead to a longer term gain. Agreeing a sub-optimal deal, on the other hand, would be disadvantageous over the long term.
Ireland growing ever more reliant on the Uk as an export destination.
The figures show exports to Britain rose by 15 per cent to €1.3 billion in June alone. The main increase was in the exports of chemicals and related products. The value of Irish exports as a whole, however, fell by 8 per cent to €9.4 billion in June on foot of a big contraction in the value of “other transport equipment” exports, which include aircraft.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Yes the disproving of her beliefs with evidence and facts was dreadful. I hope you are all ashamed of yourselves.
Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.
It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.
That depends what a bad deal looks like. Britain's trade with Ireland is huge: in 2016, £26.7bn of exports and £20.8bn of imports. There are only seven countries in the world that Britain imports more from, and only four that it exports more to. But if those numbers are big for the UK, they're gargantuan for Ireland, which has a population only about 1/14th that of the UK. The most that Britain imports from any country is the £75bn from Germany, and the most we export to is the £100bn to the US. Pro rata up the Anglo-Irish trade from the Irish side, and the UK is something like four times more important to Ireland than Britain's largest trading partners are to it.
15% of Irish exports go to the UK. Around 50% of UK exports go to the EU. If the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal we lose access to and membership of hundreds of international agreements. Ireland keeps everything. A no deal Brexit is not a sustainable solution for the UK, so we would have to return to the negotiating table. So, short term pain for Ireland would probably lead to a longer term gain. Agreeing a sub-optimal deal, on the other hand, would be disadvantageous over the long term.
Ireland growing ever more reliant on the Uk as an export destination.
The figures show exports to Britain rose by 15 per cent to €1.3 billion in June alone. The main increase was in the exports of chemicals and related products. The value of Irish exports as a whole, however, fell by 8 per cent to €9.4 billion in June on foot of a big contraction in the value of “other transport equipment” exports, which include aircraft.
Irish Times..
Ireland is much less dependent on the UK market than it was pre EU. In 1970 we took 90% of their exports. It was EU membership that transformed Ireland from an isolationist, poor vassal state of the UK, exporting food and its people to the state it is now. It is a remarkable transformation.
This is an interesting recent development too, showing Irish preparations for Brexit. Direct ferry links to the EU expanding:
Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.
Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales
Quick way to assist leave in spades
The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.
The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.
Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.
It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.
That depends what a bad deal looks like. Britain's trade with Ireland is huge: in 2016, £26.7bn of exports and £20.8bn of imports. There are only seven countries in the world that Britain imports more from, and only four that it exports more to. But if those numbers are big for the UK, they're gargantuan for Ireland, which has a population only about 1/14th that of the UK. The most that Britain imports from any country is the £75bn from Germany, and the most we export to is the £100bn to the US
15% of Irish exports go to the UK. Around 50% of UK exports go to the EU. If the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal we lose access to and membership of hundreds of international agreements. Ireland keeps everything. A no deal Brexit is not a sustainable solution for the UK, so we would have to return to the negotiating table. So, short term pain for Ireland would probably lead to a longer term gain. Agreeing a sub-optimal deal, on the other hand, would be disadvantageous over the long term.
Ireland growing ever more reliant on the Uk as an export destination.
The figures show exports to Britain rose by 15 per cent to €1.3 billion in June alone. The main increase was in the exports of chemicals and related products. The value of Irish exports as a whole, however, fell by 8 per cent to €9.4 billion in June on foot of a big contraction in the value of “other transport equipment” exports, which include aircraft.
Irish Times..
Ireland is much less dependent on the UK market than it was pre EU. In 1970 we took 90% of their exports. It was EU membership that transformed Ireland from an isolationist, poor vassal state of the UK, exporting food and its people to the state it is now. It is a remarkable transformation.
This is an interesting recent development too, showing Irish preparations for Brexit. Direct ferry links to the EU expanding:
Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.
Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales
Quick way to assist leave in spades
The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.
The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.
Hence fury with the EU if this actually happens
Let them sue us
Do you not think that breaking our existing treaty obligations as a current EU member may taint our Brexit negotiations?
It would be wiser for free marketeers to criticise Trump than the EU over this.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
A clever bastard. But a complete and utter ****.
He didn’t like women either. Was unnecessarily and unforgivably aggressively rude to many
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
A clever bastard. But a complete and utter ****.
He didn’t like women either. Was unnecessarily and unforgivably aggressively rude to many
He did have a rather misogynistic streak, and did act as a bully at times. However he had some wit and as well as betting tips his knowledge of music and wine was good.
Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.
Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales
Quick way to assist leave in spades
The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.
The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.
Hence fury with the EU if this actually happens
Let them sue us
Do you not think that breaking our existing treaty obligations as a current EU member may taint our Brexit negotiations?
It would be wiser for free marketeers to criticise Trump than the EU over this.
Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.
Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales
Quick way to assist leave in spades
The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.
The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.
Hence fury with the EU if this actually happens
Let them sue us
Do you not think that breaking our existing treaty obligations as a current EU member may taint our Brexit negotiations?
It would be wiser for free marketeers to criticise Trump than the EU over this.
Prostrating yourself at the feet of Donald Trump and saying you’ll do as he tells you in order to avoid sanctions is an intriguing way to take back control. When he sees it works he’ll do it again, of course.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
A clever bastard. But a complete and utter ****.
He didn’t like women either. Was unnecessarily and unforgivably aggressively rude to many
IMV he was unnecessarily and unforgivably aggressively rude to many people - if you got on the wrong side of him, he didn't care if you were male or female - he just went off on one.
Like many of us, he was someone who occasionally required a filter between brain and keyboard.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.
Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.
I hope for Twitter's sake he has curbed his misogyny there. Because it was a very clear part of his posting personality on here. Troubling that you couldn't see it.
I could not see it because it wasn’t there. It was an accusation thrown at him from time to tome by people who had no other way of arguing with him. Fools, hypocrites and racists should not be immune to criticism just because they are women.
Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.
If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.
The question is whether we should take the bait.
And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.
We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.
Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.
Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.
I hope for Twitter's sake he has curbed his misogyny there. Because it was a very clear part of his posting personality on here. Troubling that you couldn't see it.
I could not see it because it wasn’t there. It was an accusation thrown at him from time to tome by people who had no other way of arguing with him. Fools, hypocrites and racists should not be immune to criticism just because they are women.
Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.
Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.
It's odd how most (all?) of the posters claiming it seem to be of the opposite political persuasion to him.
In reality, he was the anti-SeanT: they are both people who can be witty, but who can turn that power into something a little more nasty. It's no surprise that a confrontation between the matter and anti-matter was what caused Tim to leave this site.
There are perhaps two differences: SeanT's insults tend to be more witty, and he is far less steadfast in his views than Tim was. But they're both cut from the same cloth, or at least cloth made from the same fibres..
Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.
It's odd how most (all?) of the posters claiming it seem to be of the opposite political persuasion to him.
In reality, he was the anti-SeanT: they are both people who can be witty, but who can turn that power into something a little more nasty. It's no surprise that a confrontation between the matter and anti-matter was what caused Tim to leave this site.
There are perhaps two differences: SeanT's insults tend to be more witty, and he is far less steadfast in his views than Tim was. But they're both cut from the same cloth, or at least cloth made from the same fibres..
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Plato was not exactly a boon to the site either, especially towards the end of her posting career when she turned into an alt-right Kremlin bot
Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.
It's odd how most (all?) of the posters claiming it seem to be of the opposite political persuasion to him.
In reality, he was the anti-SeanT: they are both people who can be witty, but who can turn that power into something a little more nasty. It's no surprise that a confrontation between the matter and anti-matter was what caused Tim to leave this site.
There are perhaps two differences: SeanT's insults tend to be more witty, and he is far less steadfast in his views than Tim was. But they're both cut from the same cloth, or at least cloth made from the same fibres..
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Plato was not exactly a boon to the site either, especially towards the end of her posting career when she turned into an alt-right Kremlin bot
And - by delving into websites that no-one else was reading - spotted that Donald Trump was going to get elected. No, that was no boon to a betting site, no sirreeeeee.....
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Plato was not exactly a boon to the site either, especially towards the end of her posting career when she turned into an alt-right Kremlin bot
And - by delving into websites that no-one else was reading - spotted that Donald Trump was going to get elected. No, that was no boon to a betting site, no sirreeeeee.....
That’s a myth. One week before the election she was claiming she had no idea who’d win and was just posting her fake news tweets for “balance”. Of course, afterwards she claimed she knew all along.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Plato was not exactly a boon to the site either, especially towards the end of her posting career when she turned into an alt-right Kremlin bot
And - by delving into websites that no-one else was reading - spotted that Donald Trump was going to get elected. No, that was no boon to a betting site, no sirreeeeee.....
That’s a myth. One week before the election she was claiming she had no idea who’d win and was just posting her fake news tweets for “balance”. Of course, afterwards she claimed she knew all along.
Whereas, one week before the election, the money was on Hillary.
Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.
My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
Plato was not exactly a boon to the site either, especially towards the end of her posting career when she turned into an alt-right Kremlin bot
And - by delving into websites that no-one else was reading - spotted that Donald Trump was going to get elected. No, that was no boon to a betting site, no sirreeeeee.....
That’s a myth. One week before the election she was claiming she had no idea who’d win and was just posting her fake news tweets for “balance”. Of course, afterwards she claimed she knew all along.
Whereas, one week before the election, the money was on Hillary.
Not mine! Trump was my second most profitable PB event ever after Brexit. It would just be nice to make money from an outcome I wanted to happen for once!
Not mine! Trump was my second most profitable PB event ever after Brexit. It would just be nice to make money from an outcome I wanted to happen for once!
A well-stocked cellar gives you something with which to numb the pain of unhappy outcomes.
But I wonder to what extent the likes of Plato's postings from the dark underbelly of Trumpistan gave you some comfort that your wager wasn't going to be pissed up a wall?
Odd to see those who obdurately refuse to accept that Leave was founded on xenophobic lies, despite abundant evidence, so willing to accuse a long-absent poster of misogyny without citing any evidence.
Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.
It's odd how most (all?) of the posters claiming it seem to be of the opposite political persuasion to him.
And those defending him seem to be politically alligned with the anti-semite party.
I know where I am happy to be on this issue.
Am I aligned with the anti-semite party?
You tell me.....
It should be fairly obvious from my posts that I'm not a fan of the Labour party, particularly as it is currently constituted.
If you have never noticed me repeatedly calling Labour 'the real nasty party', then it is likely you pay little enough attention to posts and posters to tell when someone is being misogynistic or not.
If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.
The question is whether we should take the bait.
And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.
We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.
Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.
Comments
Trump does not believe in Free Trade. He ran on an openly protectionist programme. There is little evidence he sets much store by NATO either.
Several guns are being jumped here.
If we want an exemption we will need to give something, and it will not be what we already do.
That is not the way the Trump racket works.
We do have the odd disagreement but in the end it would be hopeless if we all thought the same.
Have a relaxing evening
Or just don’t eat at your computer....
So while we spend an incredible amount of money on the RAF we don't get a commensurate fighting service out of the other end.
Can we bring him back?
As we know, Ed finally got them just over 30%. But gold sov came there none.....
Watford most closely matched the GB vote shares at the last election. (Bedford on the other hand has reflected the national swing most accurately over the last 3 elections. I posted the sheet for that a few days ago).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zEh52JSfER5PaVZdMAgdHwgB3fPveZpnED5Hdp0kGfI/edit#
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/972242845636669440?s=21
It has fought with the USA in all its wars over the last century, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq so not surprising the USA will be a bit more lenient to its closet allies, especially as it is really Chinese and Mexican and to a lesser extent German steel and aluminium imports it is really focused on
https://www.instagram.com/p/BgG-bXlnCG8/?utm_source=ig_embed
The figures show exports to Britain rose by 15 per cent to €1.3 billion in June alone. The main increase was in the exports of chemicals and related products.
The value of Irish exports as a whole, however, fell by 8 per cent to €9.4 billion in June on foot of a big contraction in the value of “other transport equipment” exports, which include aircraft.
Irish Times..
This is an interesting recent development too, showing Irish preparations for Brexit. Direct ferry links to the EU expanding:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/971289718058037248
It would be wiser for free marketeers to criticise Trump than the EU over this.
I still owe him a pint from an outstanding bet.
Like many of us, he was someone who occasionally required a filter between brain and keyboard.
If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.
The question is whether we should take the bait.
And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.
We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.
Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43353274
In reality, he was the anti-SeanT: they are both people who can be witty, but who can turn that power into something a little more nasty. It's no surprise that a confrontation between the matter and anti-matter was what caused Tim to leave this site.
There are perhaps two differences: SeanT's insults tend to be more witty, and he is far less steadfast in his views than Tim was. But they're both cut from the same cloth, or at least cloth made from the same fibres..
And yes, there was some of that in it as well.
Ask yourself why so few women still post here who posted even five years ago. Whereas there are large numbers of men who have lasted the course.
I know where I am happy to be on this issue.
https://betting.betfair.com/politics/us-politics/us-election-betfair-exchange-clinton-trump-prices-graphic-011116-51.html
A well-stocked cellar gives you something with which to numb the pain of unhappy outcomes.
But I wonder to what extent the likes of Plato's postings from the dark underbelly of Trumpistan gave you some comfort that your wager wasn't going to be pissed up a wall?
If you have never noticed me repeatedly calling Labour 'the real nasty party', then it is likely you pay little enough attention to posts and posters to tell when someone is being misogynistic or not.
Pay attention, boy!