I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
Sadly the European Arrest Warrant has grossly insufficient protections on due process and human rights. It's just one of the ways my left wingness leads me to Euroscepticism.
Since the inquiry has yet to start on the evidence it seems to me too early to attribute blame definitively or exonerate any group.
Yes. That one. He was pretty coruscating this morning about the criticism of the Council for (I assume!) a Lefty.
Indeed: the distinction between the TMO and the Council was completely ignored in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. There was a very unseemly rush to judgment based on a lot of preconceptions and very little evidence.
For me one of the most interesting elements was that he said the govt also joined in the unwarranted or at least excessive condemnation of the Council. I too haven't read his full article so look forward to doing so and seeing the detail.
It was obviously a huge "labour of love" for him to have spent such time on such a project.
I'm all for understanding the human element when investigating matters. But too often we don't have that. We have a soppy emotive emotionalism and often bogus sentimentality which obscures rather than helps.
At the risk of appearing cold and callous, I find myself with similar thoughts on occasion when it comes to inquiries and arguments over terms and chairs and victim involvement. I've no doubt I'd behave the same were I personally affected, and that important, sensible changes have been made as a result of pressure at times, but to be perfectly frank I do not feel I have the knowledge to judge if someone would make a good inquiry chair, or how much involvement with victims will actually help the inquiry.
Sadly the European Arrest Warrant has grossly insufficient protections on due process and human rights. It's just one of the ways my left wingness leads me to Euroscepticism.
What does the European Arrest Warrant have to do with a Russian extradition request through Interpol?
Mr. Jessop, from Nick Griffin's first comments to now, there's been a rising suspicion that the authorities either don't care or are very lax when it comes to tackling Muslim rape gangs (Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Newcastle etc). So any suggestion of a media cover-up or authorities trying to prevent reporting has a ready made audience predisposed to at least give such a hearing, if not believe it right off the bat.
The breach of the peace/terms of suspended sentence strangeness coupled with initial reporting restrictions only made that worse.
[For the record, I do find the arrest terms and charge terms being seemingly different rather peculiar, but am persuaded by the chap (Nazir Ali?) who has performed successfully in prosecuting similar crimes and who was less than sympathetic to Robinson].
Whether it be child abuse in Rotherham, electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets, or the exploitation of migrant labour in the garment industry in Leicester, our public authorities can seem keener to avoid accusations of racism than to uphold the rule of law.
Then again, taking the easy way out isn’t new. I’m reading a book about the Easter Rising, and it’s telling that army officers who announced they would refuse to uphold Home Rule were let off, when by rights they should have been court-martialled, and if found guilty hanged.
Those in the army who refused to do this knew they would get away with it because they had the support of the then Tory party. I know, that Tory party which was always going on about the rule of law and which, conveniently, forgot about this dishonourable part of their history, when criticising those - on the other side - who took up arms against the British state.
I don’t think people who are long dead accepting lawbreaking in the past is a good reason to be ambivalent about lawbreaking today.
No doubt there are other scenarios or stupidities that could cause a crisis but they are all ever more unlikely. What I think is clear that even in a worst case scenario this is a story which will evolve slowly over a period of months, not days. Although I am a Eurosceptic and a leaver I don't think it is sensible to anticipate people acting like idiots or gloat over some hypothetical crisis which might seriously damage our largest trading links. There are real problems caused by Italy's lack of growth and very high debt. The lack of the former is making the latter ever harder to bear. But we are a very long way from Armageddon.
These "grave crises" often tend to be overblown, especially by some commentators who always think that this will mean the end of the euro.
OTOH financial crises do tend to happen - or start - in the summer - Russian bond crisis, LTCM, the credit default swap problems etc.
Sometimes crises come entirely out of the left field.
Other times (like the crash of 2008-9) people have been pointing out growing problems for years, but we've kicked the can down the road for so long that most of us assume we'll just muddle through. Italy is an example of this. Italy should never have been part of the Eurozone, and the country won't endure zero economic growth forever, but we still assume they'll muddle through.
There is a risk that this could end up in a really bad place, true. But I think there is a tendency to see every euro-related crisis in other European countries through the prism of British euroscepticism. People may well be very eurosceptic and fed up and all the rest of it but from what I understand of these Italian parties they want to improve the euro to make it work for them rather than leave. Whether they can or not is another matter but it would be a mistake to assume that Lega Nord and 5 Star are the Italian equivalent of UKIP.
A lot of Italian debt is held by Italians themselves. So departure from the euro would hurt Italians very significantly. That is likely to be a factor in what happens next.
Continuing down an increasingly, if gradual, bad path because much more immediate pain occurs from stepping off it, is how many of the worst crises in history happened.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Sadly the European Arrest Warrant has grossly insufficient protections on due process and human rights. It's just one of the ways my left wingness leads me to Euroscepticism.
I don't believe Russia is a signatory to the European Arrest Warrant. Presumably this is an arrest warrant issued in accordance with the applicable laws and executed by Interpol in accordance with those laws. The EAW is unlikely to have anything to do with this.
Mr. Jessop, from Nick Griffin's first comments to now, there's been a rising suspicion that the authorities either don't care or are very lax when it comes to tackling Muslim rape gangs (Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Newcastle etc). So any suggestion of a media cover-up or authorities trying to prevent reporting has a ready made audience predisposed to at least give such a hearing, if not believe it right off the bat.
The breach of the peace/terms of suspended sentence strangeness coupled with initial reporting restrictions only made that worse.
[For the record, I do find the arrest terms and charge terms being seemingly different rather peculiar, but am persuaded by the chap (Nazir Ali?) who has performed successfully in prosecuting similar crimes and who was less than sympathetic to Robinson].
Whether it be child abuse in Rotherham, electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets, or the exploitation of migrant labour in the garment industry in Leicester, our public authorities can seem keener to avoid accusations of racism than to uphold the rule of law.
Then again, taking the easy way out isn’t new. I’m reading a book about the Easter Rising, and it’s telling that army officers who announced they would refuse to uphold Home Rule were let off, when by rights they should have been court-martialled, and if found guilty hanged.
I'm assuming you're referring to the Curragh Mutiny?
If so your author isn't quite correct. What happened was the garrison commander (on instructions from Seeley, Secretary for War) asked his Protestant officers what they would do if given a choice between enforcing Home Rule in Ulster or resigning their commissions. They all said that while if ordered to move against the Ulster Volunteers they would do so, if given the choice they would resign.
There is no way they could have been hanged for that, as they had not refused an order, although asking serving officers such a stupid question does go some way to explaining why Balfour wasn't that bothered when Seeley defected from the Unionists over Free Trade.
Asquith was furious they had even been offered the choice and kept the War Office portfolio himself for the next year when Seeley inevitably resigned, until appointing Kitchener on the outbreak of the First World War.
A much more useful stick to beat the Unionists with is their threat to veto the Mutiny Act in the House of Lords, which would have disbanded the army until a new one could be passed. Now in the build up to World War that really would have been a traitorous and unpatriotic and truly disastrous move.
Mr. Jessop, I just said I agree with the prosecutor who disagreed with Robinson's actions...
(Snip)
Robinson's actions are not core to the complaint you were making; your complaint was about the reporting of his actions and subsequent legal difficulties, and the effects it might have on his supporters.
Which has been (IMO at least) well-handled by both the courts and the media.
Mr. Jessop, from Nick Griffin's first comments to now, there's been a rising suspicion that the authorities either don't care or are very lax when it comes to tackling Muslim rape gangs (Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Newcastle etc). So any suggestion of a media cover-up or authorities trying to prevent reporting has a ready made audience predisposed to at least give such a hearing, if not believe it right off the bat.
The breach of the peace/terms of suspended sentence strangeness coupled with initial reporting restrictions only made that worse.
[For the record, I do find the arrest terms and charge terms being seemingly different rather peculiar, but am persuaded by the chap (Nazir Ali?) who has performed successfully in prosecuting similar crimes and who was less than sympathetic to Robinson].
Whether it be child abuse in Rotherham, electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets, or the exploitation of migrant labour in the garment industry in Leicester, our public authorities can seem keener to avoid accusations of racism than to uphold the rule of law.
Then again, taking the easy way out isn’t new. I’m reading a book about the Easter Rising, and it’s telling that army officers who announced they would refuse to uphold Home Rule were let off, when by rights they should have been court-martialled, and if found guilty hanged.
Those in the army who refused to do this knew they would get away with it because they had the support of the then Tory party. I know, that Tory party which was always going on about the rule of law and which, conveniently, forgot about this dishonourable part of their history, when criticising those - on the other side - who took up arms against the British state.
I don’t think people who are long dead accepting lawbreaking in the past is a good reason to be ambivalent about lawbreaking today.
I didn't say it was. But the history of how NI came about and what that meant for the nationalist community was very relevant to the violence which ensued and some historical memory might well have helped avoid those problems. There was a stunning lack of self-awareness among those very prone to talk about the rule of law.
Imagine that the Italian government created a parallel currency called the Lira. It then announced that all civil servants would be paid in Lira. The Lira - of course - devalues 25% against the Euro. But all those civil servants still have Euro rent. They would regard it (correctly) as a 25% pay cut.
Who would accept payment in Lira, over Euros?
Italy has found themselves in a very difficult hole. The issue they have is this: if they want to escape the Euro, they need to implement sensible policies first. But those policies are the exact opposite - labour market liberalisation, for example - of what is demanded by their supporters.
It's why the only way for the euro to solve its mess is for Germany either to start subsidising the southern Countries in return for economic reforms or for Germany to leave the Euro (which they can never do as it works in their economic interests).
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
Mr. eek, they won't face the problem until they must. So they'll ignore it at the optimum/least harmful time for change, and only do something when they have no choice due to catastrophe.
Mr. Jessop, from Nick Griffin's first comments to now, there's been a rising suspicion that the authorities either don't care or are very lax when it comes to tackling Muslim rape gangs (Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Newcastle etc). So any suggestion of a media cover-up or authorities trying to prevent reporting has a ready made audience predisposed to at least give such a hearing, if not believe it right off the bat.
The breach of the peace/terms of suspended sentence strangeness coupled with initial reporting restrictions only made that worse.
[For the record, I do find the arrest terms and charge terms being seemingly different rather peculiar, but am persuaded by the chap (Nazir Ali?) who has performed successfully in prosecuting similar crimes and who was less than sympathetic to Robinson].
Whether it be child abuse in Rotherham, electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets, or the exploitation of migrant labour in the garment industry in Leicester, our public authorities can seem keener to avoid accusations of racism than to uphold the rule of law.
Then again, taking the easy way out isn’t new. I’m reading a book about the Easter Rising, and it’s telling that army officers who announced they would refuse to uphold Home Rule were let off, when by rights they should have been court-martialled, and if found guilty hanged.
I'm assuming you're referring to the Curragh Mutiny?
If so your author isn't quite correct. What happened was the garrison commander (on instructions from Seeley, Secretary for War) asked his Protestant officers what they would do if given a choice between enforcing Home Rule in Ulster or resigning their commissions. They all said that while if ordered to move against the Ulster Volunteers they would do so, if given the choice they would resign.
There is no way they could have been hanged for that, as they had not refused an order, although asking serving officers such a stupid question does go some way to explaining why Balfour wasn't that bothered when Seeley defected from the Unionists over Free Trade.
Asquith was furious they had even been offered the choice and kept the War Office portfolio himself for the next year when Seeley inevitably resigned, until appointing Kitchener on the outbreak of the First World War.
A much more useful stick to beat the Unionists with is their threat to veto the Mutiny Act in the House of Lords, which would have disbanded the army until a new one could be passed. Now in the build up to World War that really would have been a traitorous and unpatriotic and truly disastrous move.
Those officers should have been dismissed for giving that answer. I agree that it was clearly mad to ask them.
Imagine that the Italian government created a parallel currency called the Lira. It then announced that all civil servants would be paid in Lira. The Lira - of course - devalues 25% against the Euro. But all those civil servants still have Euro rent. They would regard it (correctly) as a 25% pay cut.
Who would accept payment in Lira, over Euros?
Italy has found themselves in a very difficult hole. The issue they have is this: if they want to escape the Euro, they need to implement sensible policies first. But those policies are the exact opposite - labour market liberalisation, for example - of what is demanded by their supporters.
It's why the only way for the euro to solve its mess is for Germany either to start subsidising the southern Countries in return for economic reforms or for Germany to leave the Euro (which they can never do as it works in their economic interests).
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
This was a feature not a bug. The Euro was designed with the aim of forcing the southern European countries to adopt northern working practices, offset by the protections afforded by the Social Chapter. It was an elegant solution from Delors which failed only by ignoring the democratic angle - that you can't easily force a people to change their working culture against their will and that imposition from abroad will be resented and undermine support for the European Project in general.
Imagine that the Italian government created a parallel currency called the Lira. It then announced that all civil servants would be paid in Lira. The Lira - of course - devalues 25% against the Euro. But all those civil servants still have Euro rent. They would regard it (correctly) as a 25% pay cut.
Who would accept payment in Lira, over Euros?
Italy has found themselves in a very difficult hole. The issue they have is this: if they want to escape the Euro, they need to implement sensible policies first. But those policies are the exact opposite - labour market liberalisation, for example - of what is demanded by their supporters.
It's why the only way for the euro to solve its mess is for Germany either to start subsidising the southern Countries in return for economic reforms or for Germany to leave the Euro (which they can never do as it works in their economic interests).
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
This was a feature not a bug. The Euro was designed with the aim of forcing the southern European countries to adopt northern working practices, offset by the protections afforded by the Social Chapter. It was an elegant solution from Delors which failed only by ignoring the democratic angle - that you can't easily force a people to change their working culture against their will and that imposition from abroad will be resented and undermine support for the European Project in general.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
With two full mags of 5.56x45mm you'd need arms like Garth to use it effectively,
A lot of the more grizzled gun nuts also seem to be steroidal muscle Marys, so I guess that's the market. Probably rules out the pencil necked incels who want to rub out anyone who's gettin' some though.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
No doubt there was a supreme Court case which determined the right to bear arms meant functioning arms, and free access to ammunition was a requisite part of their functioning or something. If only though.
I'm assuming you're referring to the Curragh Mutiny?
If so your author isn't quite correct. What happened was the garrison commander (on instructions from Seeley, Secretary for War) asked his Protestant officers what they would do if given a choice between enforcing Home Rule in Ulster or resigning their commissions. They all said that while if ordered to move against the Ulster Volunteers they would do so, if given the choice they would resign.
There is no way they could have been hanged for that, as they had not refused an order, although asking serving officers such a stupid question does go some way to explaining why Balfour wasn't that bothered when Seeley defected from the Unionists over Free Trade.
Asquith was furious they had even been offered the choice and kept the War Office portfolio himself for the next year when Seeley inevitably resigned, until appointing Kitchener on the outbreak of the First World War.
A much more useful stick to beat the Unionists with is their threat to veto the Mutiny Act in the House of Lords, which would have disbanded the army until a new one could be passed. Now in the build up to World War that really would have been a traitorous and unpatriotic and truly disastrous move.
Those officers should have been dismissed for giving that answer. I agree that it was clearly mad to ask them.
The problem is you can't dismiss somebody for answering a question honestly saying they would like to take one of the two options they were offered. The point is the question should never have been asked. They should have been ordered North and left it at that.
Curragh was one of those strange incidents caused by an exhausted government with no majority led by a PM who wasn't up to it (even on the rare occasions he was sober) riven by factions between moderates led by the Foreign Secretary and extremists led by the Chancellor, trying to deal with a situation far beyond its capacity. In retrospect it looks silly. At the time it was a big deal because the atmosphere was so intense, but in reality the only significance it has was it caused the Unionists to draw back from disbanding the army.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
No doubt there was a supreme Court case which determined the right to bear arms meant functioning arms, and free access to ammunition was a requisite part of their functioning or something. If only though.
Maybe it was originally written as 'the right to bare arms'. Worth a try.
Imagine that the Italian government created a parallel currency called the Lira. It then announced that all civil servants would be paid in Lira. The Lira - of course - devalues 25% against the Euro. But all those civil servants still have Euro rent. They would regard it (correctly) as a 25% pay cut.
Who would accept payment in Lira, over Euros?
Italy has found themselves in a very difficult hole. The issue they have is this: if they want to escape the Euro, they need to implement sensible policies first. But those policies are the exact opposite - labour market liberalisation, for example - of what is demanded by their supporters.
It's why the only way for the euro to solve its mess is for Germany either to start subsidising the southern Countries in return for economic reforms or for Germany to leave the Euro (which they can never do as it works in their economic interests).
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
Does dealing with a problem rather than solving it mean solving a parent problem or just kicking the board over?
It's always seemed to me that the next Lehmans event would be greater than the first by a factor of 10 if not 100. No bailouts then. And there may be only a 30% rise in NFLX before it happens :-)
Hopefully there will be some people left alive who can look back and view the idea of a takeover of the roads by driverless cars with derision.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
No doubt there was a supreme Court case which determined the right to bear arms meant functioning arms, and free access to ammunition was a requisite part of their functioning or something. If only though.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
No doubt there was a supreme Court case which determined the right to bear arms meant functioning arms, and free access to ammunition was a requisite part of their functioning or something. If only though.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
No doubt there was a supreme Court case which determined the right to bear arms meant functioning arms, and free access to ammunition was a requisite part of their functioning or something. If only though.
There are over 90 countries in the world with higher murder rates than the US and all of those have lower gun ownership rates or gun bans,
Ultimately unless you are an American citizen or have family there or live there why should we care more about what America's laws are than those of those 90 plus nations. Or don't their homicides matter as they are rarely if ever streamed across 24 hours news channels offering cheap feeds to the BBC and Sky?
I very much doubt the second amendment will ever be removed - the bar for constitutional amendments is very high given how many states you need. But it the end it's a matter for Americans just as equivalent laws say in Jamaica and Honduras - which have far higher murder rates - are a matter for those nations and we rarely get much coverage from those nations even though one of them has our Queen as head of state.
Sorry but we just obsess too much about America - it's for Americans to sort out.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
Columbia vs Heller (2008) would probably cover it.
It said Washington DC couldn't require that weapons be kept secured and unloaded as that infringed the Second Amendment.
Logically therefore, since loading requires bullets, you can't ban bullets.
Edit: @kle4 sorry, I hadn't seen your reply, which I assume was about the same thing.
Mr. 16, how many of those are directly comparable (ie wealthy democracies)?
On news coverage, they're an Anglophone nation with whom we share much history and political/cultural interests. Plus, coverage varies a lot according to prevalence of the media (which is one reason why a hurricane hitting Haiti gets less coverage than if it then hits the US, simply because there's less footage to show).
Ive been watching the EU Parlt meeting the Lux PM.
MEPs ask 60%+ questions on Lux as tax haven and why they ae blocking measures of reform MEP give waffle on Europe, a poke at Brexit and then skates over tax avoidance.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
Columbia vs Heller (2008) would probably cover it.
It said Washington DC couldn't require that weapons be kept secured and unloaded as that infringed the Second Amendment.
Logically therefore, since loading requires bullets, you can't ban bullets.
The equivalent of Plessy v. Ferguson, we need the equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education.
Seems Bill Browder has now been released, having (perhaps mistakenly) been arrested by Spanish authorities following a Russian desire for said arrest and extradition.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
No doubt there was a supreme Court case which determined the right to bear arms meant functioning arms, and free access to ammunition was a requisite part of their functioning or something. If only though.
Think we will find out shortly, California just introduced a new 'Permit to buy ammo' for $50, which is currently subject of numerous challenges in federal and state courts. The Democrats are sponsoring a background checks for ammo bill in the senate, but since (as usual) they have completely avoided trying to obtain any bipartisan support, it has no chance of going anywhere.
Seems Bill Browder has now been released, having (perhaps mistakenly) been arrested by Spanish authorities following a Russian desire for said arrest and extradition.
Now that really was a blow against free speech, not like Robinson. Very glad if sense has prevailed.
Please stick to foreign affairs, where you are a giant of wisdom, insight and integrity.
Please stay out of economics and domestic affairs, where you invariably end up looking like a muppet.
Je vous prie de croire, Monsieur, à l'assurance de mes salutations distinguées
Y Doethur
Mr Verhofstadt could do with a bit of austerity himself. He has made quite a lot of money sucking off the teat of the Belgian and now European taxpayer. Perhaps he might forego his lucrative EU pension or agree not to take it until his early 70s. Or is pain and austerity just for the plebs?
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
Columbia vs Heller (2008) would probably cover it.
It said Washington DC couldn't require that weapons be kept secured and unloaded as that infringed the Second Amendment.
Logically therefore, since loading requires bullets, you can't ban bullets.
Edit: @kle4 sorry, I hadn't seen your reply, which I assume was about the same thing.
Mine was mere speculation, I assure you any relation mine had with actual facts was purely coincidental.
When @Hunchman starts quoting Armstrong overnight as evidence that the Euro is about to collapse we can surely all see that the talk about a Euro crisis is being seriously overblown. What we have seen so far is modest increases in the spread for Italian bonds. We have also seen substantial capital flows out of Italy and some other southern European countries to "safe havens" in northern Europe. So far the ECB has been willing to replace that capital by allowing banks to draw sufficient Euros to trade normally.
To get to a crisis point it seems to me that several things have to happen.
Firstly, the populists whose Finance Minister was rejected are going to have to do better in another election that won't be held until September at the earliest. That seems possible, even probable but it is not certain.
Secondly, that government when elected has to threaten to default on the country's debts to the ECB. That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do given the power the ECB has over the Italian banking system.
Alternatively, they may conclude that they should simply leave the Euro. See above with brass knobs on.
Alternatively, the ECB may decide/be forced by Germany into either winding down or at least capping the Target2 imbalances. This would effectively cause liquidity shortages in Italy and elsewhere causing a serious recession. It would also be an incredibly stupid thing to do and inconsistent with the existence of a single currency bloc.
No doubt there are other scenarios or stupidities that could cause a crisis but they are all ever more unlikely. What I think is clear that even in a worst case scenario this is a story which will evolve slowly over a period of months, not days. Although I am a Eurosceptic and a leaver I don't think it is sensible to anticipate people acting like idiots or gloat over some hypothetical crisis which might seriously damage our largest trading links. There are real problems caused by Italy's lack of growth and very high debt. The lack of the former is making the latter ever harder to bear. But we are a very long way from Armageddon.
These "grave crises" often tend to be overblown, especially by some commentators who always think that this will mean the end of the euro.
OTOH financial crises do tend to happen - or start - in the summer - Russian bond crisis, LTCM, the credit default swap problems etc.
Im sure I remember reading a technical explanation for that. Volatility is more likely on low volumes? Is that correct?
Low liquidity rather than actual low volumes. Provided there is potential to trade for/against then prices can be low volatile. Also high volumes often go with high volatility.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
I thought the most elegant solution was to simply ban bullets.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
No doubt there was a supreme Court case which determined the right to bear arms meant functioning arms, and free access to ammunition was a requisite part of their functioning or something. If only though.
Sorry but we just obsess too much about America - it's for Americans to sort out.
Never said it wasn't for them to sort it out, if they even want to sort it out (it would seem quite clear that they don't, not as a majority and certainly not decisively enough to actually do so). There's nothing untoward in discussing where we think another country has gone down the wrong path any more than there is in discussing where we think they have gone down the right path, better than us even. Yes due to their cultural dominance we pay more attention to the USA than other places, what of it? I posted about the Columbian presidential election the other day, that has even less relevance to me.
Obviously it is usually unspoken that we know as outsiders our views on guns will not accord with the american experience, by and large, nor are most here impacted by it (though some would be) but what a dull world it would be if we were not to raise every topic that crosses our minds.
Seems Bill Browder has now been released, having (perhaps mistakenly) been arrested by Spanish authorities following a Russian desire for said arrest and extradition.
Hurrah for the European Extradition Warrant as Elliot might say.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
You cannot square that circle. What is needed is leadership to change the political reality, not clever wording to circumvent it.
The gun culture, and the laws that support it, in the US are equivalent in nature, if not in scope, to the battle against slavery in the 19th century and for civil rights in the 20th, and require the same solution: outright opposition based on moral foundations. Equivocation and compromise will be opposed by the gun lobby and rolled back when given the chance.
The political solution as far as legislation goes, requires two constitutional changes; the repeal of the 2nd amendment, and the passing of a new one granting the federal Congress the power to legislate to regulate gun ownership / usage (this second one is needed so as to override the 10th amendment and, hence, the many state constitutions that incorporate their own version of the US 2nd Amendment).
The political solution as far as legislation goes, requires two constitutional changes; the repeal of the 2nd amendment, and the passing of a new one granting the federal Congress the power to legislate to regulate gun ownership / usage (this second one is needed so as to override the 10th amendment and, hence, the many state constitutions that incorporate their own version of the US 2nd Amendment).
Please stick to foreign affairs, where you are a giant of wisdom, insight and integrity.
Please stay out of economics and domestic affairs, where you invariably end up looking like a muppet.
Je vous prie de croire, Monsieur, à l'assurance de mes salutations distinguées
Y Doethur
If you want the requisite level of polite sarcasm, you have to say "mes salutations les plus distinguées".
Much like saying to a judge in court "With the greatest respect" means "You are a silly old fool, probably drunk, who wouldn't know the difference between a rule and a ruler if the latter hit you on the arse".
On topic, in terms of losing money on the event, at least Labour's coffers are probably in decent shape to take a hit - all those leadership elections and surges in membership dues must have given them a bit more of a cushion.
Matthew Lynn's take. Italy is going to have to change eventually. ... The real question is how? It can do it in a planned, orderly way, which, paradoxically, is what the populists are proposing. Or it can delay and delay until the whole system collapses, which is what the president and most of the rest of the EU seems to prefer. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/dont-blame-the-populists-for-italys-chaos/
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
You cannot square that circle. What is needed is leadership to change the political reality, not clever wording to circumvent it.
The gun culture, and the laws that support it, in the US are equivalent in nature, if not in scope, to the battle against slavery in the 19th century and for civil rights in the 20th, and require the same solution: outright opposition based on moral foundations. Equivocation and compromise will be opposed by the gun lobby and rolled back when given the chance.
The political solution as far as legislation goes, requires two constitutional changes; the repeal of the 2nd amendment, and the passing of a new one granting the federal Congress the power to legislate to regulate gun ownership / usage (this second one is needed so as to override the 10th amendment and, hence, the many state constitutions that incorporate their own version of the US 2nd Amendment).
Not necessarily. It could be done by adding a very common (e.g. 14th, 15th, 26th) second clause, thus;
1) The Second Amendment is hereby repealed;
2) The Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.
Which simultaneously removes the right to bear arms and reserves that right to draw up new legislation to Washington.
That wouldn't run foul of the Tenth Amendment as it would clearly show gun law was retained to the centre and therefore state rights wouldn't apply.
Matthew Lynn's take. Italy is going to have to change eventually. ... The real question is how? It can do it in a planned, orderly way, which, paradoxically, is what the populists are proposing. Or it can delay and delay until the whole system collapses, which is what the president and most of the rest of the EU seems to prefer. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/dont-blame-the-populists-for-italys-chaos/
Well, they assume they will muddle along in the end of course. It usually works. Until it doesn't.
They do need to stop fearing populist 'contagion' though, as though discontent is a virus they can isolate and it will die, rather than something they need to address.
Please stick to foreign affairs, where you are a giant of wisdom, insight and integrity.
Please stay out of economics and domestic affairs, where you invariably end up looking like a muppet.
Je vous prie de croire, Monsieur, à l'assurance de mes salutations distinguées
Y Doethur
If you want the requisite level of polite sarcasm, you have to say "mes salutations les plus distinguées".
Much like saying to a judge in court "With the greatest respect" means "You are a silly old fool, probably drunk, who wouldn't know the difference between a rule and a ruler if the latter hit you on the arse".
Merci, Madame Cyclefree.
I fear my French composition would disgrace a fairly bright five year old, although I can read it quite well when I have to.
Please stick to foreign affairs, where you are a giant of wisdom, insight and integrity.
Please stay out of economics and domestic affairs, where you invariably end up looking like a muppet.
Je vous prie de croire, Monsieur, à l'assurance de mes salutations distinguées
Y Doethur
If you want the requisite level of polite sarcasm, you have to say "mes salutations les plus distinguées".
Much like saying to a judge in court "With the greatest respect" means "You are a silly old fool, probably drunk, who wouldn't know the difference between a rule and a ruler if the latter hit you on the arse".
My uncle, a patent attorney, had three levels:
1. with respect; 2. with great respect; and 3. with the greatest respect.
Each one in ascending (descending?) degrees of patronisation.
As an occassional festival goer (usually Lattitude), Labour Live has little appeal. The festival calender is too full at present, the lineup is poor, and this one happens as the World Cup commences.
Festivals not infrequently go broke, and are not for the inexperienced to arrange! better to sponser a stage at one of the established festivals with a sympathetic audience.
That seems eminently sensible. But the question is why Labour felt the need for a festival; it hardly seems to be the most efficient way of getting votes as most of the attendees will be believers anyway.
Jezza had a great time at Glastonbury last year, and with Michael Eavis giving his fields a rest this year Corbyn (or more likely those around him) thought he’d have a go at doing it himself. But without the expertise. Or the history. Or the bands.
Jeremy giving a happy foretaste of what a newly renationalised JezRail would be like.
Please stick to foreign affairs, where you are a giant of wisdom, insight and integrity.
Please stay out of economics and domestic affairs, where you invariably end up looking like a muppet.
Je vous prie de croire, Monsieur, à l'assurance de mes salutations distinguées
Y Doethur
If you want the requisite level of polite sarcasm, you have to say "mes salutations les plus distinguées".
Much like saying to a judge in court "With the greatest respect" means "You are a silly old fool, probably drunk, who wouldn't know the difference between a rule and a ruler if the latter hit you on the arse".
Merci, Madame Cyclefree.
I fear my French composition would disgrace a fairly bright five year old, although I can read it quite well when I have to.
I once turned up at a meeting with the French regulators many years ago as part of a "meet and greet" session. The meeting turned into a 3 hour discussion about every aspect of regulatory investigations, the relevant EU directives and much else besides which I had to do entirely in French.
I certainly deserved the glass of champagne I awarded myself on the Eurostar on the way home!
Mind you relations between us thawed quite considerably as a result, which helped, though every time they sent something to me they would ring up first to have a chat as if they couldn't quite believe they'd found someone in England who spoke French fluently.
I have had a healthy respect for French regulators ever since.
I think we can all agree that being shot with an Israeli gun is much worse than being shot with a Kalashnikov and anyone that disagrees is probably a Zionist shill.
I'm pretty sure being shot with a double barrelled assault rifle is worse than a single barrelled one. I think we can all agree both are shit.
I've given up trying to get my head around American gun laws - I think it will take another generation for change to be made - and a truly great president.
Probably, but hard to imagine the level of Solomon-esque wisdom that could square that particular circle.
You cannot square that circle. What is needed is leadership to change the political reality, not clever wording to circumvent it.
The gun culture, and the laws that support it, in the US are equivalent in nature, if not in scope, to the battle against slavery in the 19th century and for civil rights in the 20th, and require the same solution: outright opposition based on moral foundations. Equivocation and compromise will be opposed by the gun lobby and rolled back when given the chance.
The political solution as far as legislation goes, requires two constitutional changes; the repeal of the 2nd amendment, and the passing of a new one granting the federal Congress the power to legislate to regulate gun ownership / usage (this second one is needed so as to override the 10th amendment and, hence, the many state constitutions that incorporate their own version of the US 2nd Amendment).
Not necessarily. It could be done by adding a very common (e.g. 14th, 15th, 26th) second clause, thus;
1) The Second Amendment is hereby repealed;
2) The Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.
Which simultaneously removes the right to bear arms and reserves that right to draw up new legislation to Washington.
That wouldn't run foul of the Tenth Amendment as it would clearly show gun law was retained to the centre and therefore state rights wouldn't apply.
With the greatest respect, that would be up to the supreme court to decide and it's not clear that the second clause would be sufficient to override a state constitution when it refers only to the absence of something.
Mr. Jessop, from Nick Griffin's first comments to now, there's been a rising suspicion that the authorities either don't care or are very lax when it comes to tackling Muslim rape gangs (Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Newcastle etc). So any suggestion of a media cover-up or authorities trying to prevent reporting has a ready made audience predisposed to at least give such a hearing, if not believe it right off the bat.
The breach of the peace/terms of suspended sentence strangeness coupled with initial reporting restrictions only made that worse.
[For the record, I do find the arrest terms and charge terms being seemingly different rather peculiar, but am persuaded by the chap (Nazir Ali?) who has performed successfully in prosecuting similar crimes and who was less than sympathetic to Robinson].
Whether it be child abuse in Rotherham, electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets, or the exploitation of migrant labour in the garment industry in Leicester, our public authorities can seem keener to avoid accusations of racism than to uphold the rule of law.
Then again, taking the easy way out isn’t new. I’m reading a book about the Easter Rising, and it’s telling that army officers who announced they would refuse to uphold Home Rule were let off, when by rights they should have been court-martialled, and if found guilty hanged.
Cashiered, not hanged. There was no offence for which they could be hanged.
I usually buy two or three pairs of walking boots at a time, and I've just started breaking in the last pair of my old Scarpa Trek GTX's - a brilliant boot. I've gone to order some more, only to discover that they've changed the design so I've no idea if they'll fit me. Worse, they've gone up in price from £160 to £200.
Imagine that the Italian government created a parallel currency called the Lira. It then announced that all civil servants would be paid in Lira. The Lira - of course - devalues 25% against the Euro. But all those civil servants still have Euro rent. They would regard it (correctly) as a 25% pay cut.
Who would accept payment in Lira, over Euros?
Italy has found themselves in a very difficult hole. The issue they have is this: if they want to escape the Euro, they need to implement sensible policies first. But those policies are the exact opposite - labour market liberalisation, for example - of what is demanded by their supporters.
It's why the only way for the euro to solve its mess is for Germany either to start subsidising the southern Countries in return for economic reforms or for Germany to leave the Euro (which they can never do as it works in their economic interests).
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
This was a feature not a bug. The Euro was designed with the aim of forcing the southern European countries to adopt northern working practices, offset by the protections afforded by the Social Chapter. It was an elegant solution from Delors which failed only by ignoring the democratic angle - that you can't easily force a people to change their working culture against their will and that imposition from abroad will be resented and undermine support for the European Project in general.
Paradoxically, if everyone adopted German practices, we'd all be in trouble. Germany depends on other countries running large trade deficits.
As an occassional festival goer (usually Lattitude), Labour Live has little appeal. The festival calender is too full at present, the lineup is poor, and this one happens as the World Cup commences.
Festivals not infrequently go broke, and are not for the inexperienced to arrange! better to sponser a stage at one of the established festivals with a sympathetic audience.
That seems eminently sensible. But the question is why Labour felt the need for a festival; it hardly seems to be the most efficient way of getting votes as most of the attendees will be believers anyway.
Jezza had a great time at Glastonbury last year, and with Michael Eavis giving his fields a rest this year Corbyn (or more likely those around him) thought he’d have a go at doing it himself. But without the expertise. Or the history. Or the bands.
Jeremy giving a happy foretaste of what a newly renationalised JezRail would be like.
If you want that, just look at the new trains ordered by the DfT and forced upon franchises. There is a great deal of disgust at the quality (or lack thereof) of the seats, which are seen to be far too hard for long-distance services and lack trays and cupholders. And no-one is willing to accept responsibility for the mess.
You cannot square that circle. What is needed is leadership to change the political reality, not clever wording to circumvent it.
The gun culture, and the laws that support it, in the US are equivalent in nature, if not in scope, to the battle against slavery in the 19th century and for civil rights in the 20th, and require the same solution: outright opposition based on moral foundations. Equivocation and compromise will be opposed by the gun lobby and rolled back when given the chance.
The political solution as far as legislation goes, requires two constitutional changes; the repeal of the 2nd amendment, and the passing of a new one granting the federal Congress the power to legislate to regulate gun ownership / usage (this second one is needed so as to override the 10th amendment and, hence, the many state constitutions that incorporate their own version of the US 2nd Amendment).
Not necessarily. It could be done by adding a very common (e.g. 14th, 15th, 26th) second clause, thus;
1) The Second Amendment is hereby repealed;
2) The Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.
Which simultaneously removes the right to bear arms and reserves that right to draw up new legislation to Washington.
That wouldn't run foul of the Tenth Amendment as it would clearly show gun law was retained to the centre and therefore state rights wouldn't apply.
I think we're arguing semantics here as we agree on what'd be needed; you've combined the two amendments into a single Amendment - which does make logical sense.
That said, I'd word the second clause more explicitly. I don't think that as worded, it would necessarily override the 10th Amendment - particularly to a political Supreme Court. Repealing the 2nd Amendment would just leave the constitution silent on gun rights, which implicitly would mean (1) that under the Tenth, it was reserved to the states, and (2) although there was no constitutional right to bear arms, nor was there any explicit power to regulate them, so such power would have to be inferred from elsewhere. The Supreme Court might well decide that the second clause was superfluous as there's no legislation that could be passed that affects a repealed right (it's perhaps notable that the 21st amendment contains no such clause).
A second clause along the lines of
2) Congress shall have the power to regulate the ownership and usage of firearms by legislation.
Imagine that the Italian government created a parallel currency called the Lira. It then announced that all civil servants would be paid in Lira. The Lira - of course - devalues 25% against the Euro. But all those civil servants still have Euro rent. They would regard it (correctly) as a 25% pay cut.
Who would accept payment in Lira, over Euros?
Italy has found themselves in a very difficult hole. The issue they have is this: if they want to escape the Euro, they need to implement sensible policies first. But those policies are the exact opposite - labour market liberalisation, for example - of what is demanded by their supporters.
It's why the only way for the euro to solve its mess is for Germany either to start subsidising the southern Countries in return for economic reforms or for Germany to leave the Euro (which they can never do as it works in their economic interests).
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
This was a feature not a bug. The Euro was designed with the aim of forcing the southern European countries to adopt northern working practices, offset by the protections afforded by the Social Chapter. It was an elegant solution from Delors which failed only by ignoring the democratic angle - that you can't easily force a people to change their working culture against their will and that imposition from abroad will be resented and undermine support for the European Project in general.
Paradoxically, if everyone adopted German practices, we'd all be in trouble. Germany depends on other countries running large trade deficits.
I usually buy two or three pairs of walking boots at a time, and I've just started breaking in the last pair of my old Scarpa Trek GTX's - a brilliant boot. I've gone to order some more, only to discover that they've changed the design so I've no idea if they'll fit me. Worse, they've gone up in price from £160 to £200.
Bu**er.
(I know, first world problems)
Which side of the leather vs man mad fibres hiking boot debate are you on ?
Imagine that the Italian government created a parallel currency called the Lira. It then announced that all civil servants would be paid in Lira. The Lira - of course - devalues 25% against the Euro. But all those civil servants still have Euro rent. They would regard it (correctly) as a 25% pay cut.
Who would accept payment in Lira, over Euros?
Italy has found themselves in a very difficult hole. The issue they have is this: if they want to escape the Euro, they need to implement sensible policies first. But those policies are the exact opposite - labour market liberalisation, for example - of what is demanded by their supporters.
It's why the only way for the euro to solve its mess is for Germany either to start subsidising the southern Countries in return for economic reforms or for Germany to leave the Euro (which they can never do as it works in their economic interests).
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
This was a feature not a bug. The Euro was designed with the aim of forcing the southern European countries to adopt northern working practices, offset by the protections afforded by the Social Chapter. It was an elegant solution from Delors which failed only by ignoring the democratic angle - that you can't easily force a people to change their working culture against their will and that imposition from abroad will be resented and undermine support for the European Project in general.
Paradoxically, if everyone adopted German practices, we'd all be in trouble. Germany depends on other countries running large trade deficits.
Indeed, though if all EU countries were like Germany the Euro would be worth something like $2.50 and act as a counterbalance to any trade surplus. It is only because the Euro includes weak nations in Southern Europe that Germany is able to continually run such huge trade and current account surpluses.
As an occassional festival goer (usually Lattitude), Labour Live has little appeal. The festival calender is too full at present, the lineup is poor, and this one happens as the World Cup commences.
Festivals not infrequently go broke, and are not for the inexperienced to arrange! better to sponser a stage at one of the established festivals with a sympathetic audience.
That seems eminently sensible. But the question is why Labour felt the need for a festival; it hardly seems to be the most efficient way of getting votes as most of the attendees will be believers anyway.
Jezza had a great time at Glastonbury last year, and with Michael Eavis giving his fields a rest this year Corbyn (or more likely those around him) thought he’d have a go at doing it himself. But without the expertise. Or the history. Or the bands.
Jeremy giving a happy foretaste of what a newly renationalised JezRail would be like.
If you want that, just look at the new trains ordered by the DfT and forced upon franchises. There is a great deal of disgust at the quality (or lack thereof) of the seats, which are seen to be far too hard for long-distance services and lack trays and cupholders. And no-one is willing to accept responsibility for the mess.
Oh, absolutely. I have no idea why the DfT is getting involved in specifying seat design. That's exactly the sort of business decision that should be left to the operating companies, who can balance the risk/reward equation. If left to government, you invariably get cheap and nasty, unless you hit a ministers pet enthusiasm or unless there are votes to be had in a more expensive option.
Theresa is starting to look like a prize Tory asset. Surely they won't risk dumping her now, if there's the slightest chance her replacement could bomb against Jezza.
Imagine that the Italian government created a parallel currency called the Lira. It then announced that all civil servants would be paid in Lira. The Lira - of course - devalues 25% against the Euro. But all those civil servants still have Euro rent. They would regard it (correctly) as a 25% pay cut.
Who would accept payment in Lira, over Euros?
Italy has found themselves in a very difficult hole. The issue they have is this: if they want to escape the Euro, they need to implement sensible policies first. But those policies are the exact opposite - labour market liberalisation, for example - of what is demanded by their supporters.
It's why the only way for the euro to solve its mess is for Germany either to start subsidising the southern Countries in return for economic reforms or for Germany to leave the Euro (which they can never do as it works in their economic interests).
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
This was a feature not a bug. The Euro was designed with the aim of forcing the southern European countries to adopt northern working practices, offset by the protections afforded by the Social Chapter. It was an elegant solution from Delors which failed only by ignoring the democratic angle - that you can't easily force a people to change their working culture against their will and that imposition from abroad will be resented and undermine support for the European Project in general.
Paradoxically, if everyone adopted German practices, we'd all be in trouble. Germany depends on other countries running large trade deficits.
No-one forces us to buy their stuff .
Nobody does, but if we had their high savings rate, and were consequently importing less, and exporting more, it would not be good for them.
I usually buy two or three pairs of walking boots at a time, and I've just started breaking in the last pair of my old Scarpa Trek GTX's - a brilliant boot. I've gone to order some more, only to discover that they've changed the design so I've no idea if they'll fit me. Worse, they've gone up in price from £160 to £200.
Bu**er.
(I know, first world problems)
I tried to 'find' the same pair of Rikers work shoes (Black derbys I think) a few months back, only they no longer seem to do that style. Everything now is far too narrow, had to plump for some £18 F&F (Definitely no animals harmed in their making) as they were the only workshoes I could find that fitted.
There seems to have been a real trend in men's shoes to a really narrow fit in the last few years.
Imagine that the Italian government created a parallel currency called the Lira. It then announced that all civil servants would be paid in Lira. The Lira - of course - devalues 25% against the Euro. But all those civil servants still have Euro rent. They would regard it (correctly) as a 25% pay cut.
Who would accept payment in Lira, over Euros?
Italy has found themselves in a very difficult hole. The issue they have is this: if they want to escape the Euro, they need to implement sensible policies first. But those policies are the exact opposite - labour market liberalisation, for example - of what is demanded by their supporters.
It's why the only way for the euro to solve its mess is for Germany either to start subsidising the southern Countries in return for economic reforms or for Germany to leave the Euro (which they can never do as it works in their economic interests).
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
This was a feature not a bug. The Euro was designed with the aim of forcing the southern European countries to adopt northern working practices, offset by the protections afforded by the Social Chapter. It was an elegant solution from Delors which failed only by ignoring the democratic angle - that you can't easily force a people to change their working culture against their will and that imposition from abroad will be resented and undermine support for the European Project in general.
Paradoxically, if everyone adopted German practices, we'd all be in trouble. Germany depends on other countries running large trade deficits.
If other countries adopted German practices, Europe wouldn't need the German surpluses as there'd be plenty more wealth to go around.
Imagine that the Italian government created a parallel currency called the Lira. It then announced that all civil servants would be paid in Lira. The Lira - of course - devalues 25% against the Euro. But all those civil servants still have Euro rent. They would regard it (correctly) as a 25% pay cut.
Who would accept payment in Lira, over Euros?
Italy has found themselves in a very difficult hole. The issue they have is this: if they want to escape the Euro, they need to implement sensible policies first. But those policies are the exact opposite - labour market liberalisation, for example - of what is demanded by their supporters.
It's why the only way for the euro to solve its mess is for Germany either to start subsidising the southern Countries in return for economic reforms or for Germany to leave the Euro (which they can never do as it works in their economic interests).
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
This was a feature not a bug. The Euro was designed with the aim of forcing the southern European countries to adopt northern working practices, offset by the protections afforded by the Social Chapter. It was an elegant solution from Delors which failed only by ignoring the democratic angle - that you can't easily force a people to change their working culture against their will and that imposition from abroad will be resented and undermine support for the European Project in general.
Paradoxically, if everyone adopted German practices, we'd all be in trouble. Germany depends on other countries running large trade deficits.
No-one forces us to buy their stuff .
Well to some degree the market does, a German made car priced in DM would be about 70% more than it is currently priced in Euros. If a BMW was 70% more expensive in Sterling than a Jag or Lexus sales of BMW would naturally decrease. It is this effect that has allowed German companies to dominate all of Europe and build up a huge current account surplus. It is this effect which impoverishes the rest of Europe (and other nations which trade with Germany). Germany are the China of the west, they scream and shout about others breaking trade rules to cover their own position.
Imagine that the Italian government created a parallel currency called the Lira. It then announced that all civil servants would be paid in Lira. The Lira - of course - devalues 25% against the Euro. But all those civil servants still have Euro rent. They would regard it (correctly) as a 25% pay cut.
Who would accept payment in Lira, over Euros?
Italy has found themselves in a very difficult hole. The issue they have is this: if they want to escape the Euro, they need to implement sensible policies first. But those policies are the exact opposite - labour market liberalisation, for example - of what is demanded by their supporters.
It's why the only way for the euro to solve its mess is for Germany either to start subsidising the southern Countries in return for economic reforms or for Germany to leave the Euro (which they can never do as it works in their economic interests).
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
This was a feature not a bug. The Euro was designed with the aim of forcing the southern European countries to adopt northern working practices, offset by the protections afforded by the Social Chapter. It was an elegant solution from Delors which failed only by ignoring the democratic angle - that you can't easily force a people to change their working culture against their will and that imposition from abroad will be resented and undermine support for the European Project in general.
Paradoxically, if everyone adopted German practices, we'd all be in trouble. Germany depends on other countries running large trade deficits.
If other countries adopted German practices, Europe wouldn't need the German surpluses as there'd be plenty more wealth to go around.
No there wouldn't. Intra-EMU trade is a zero sum game and externally the Euro would rise to balance out many of the structural gains. If anything a rise in the value of the Euro would help the rest of us much more.
I usually buy two or three pairs of walking boots at a time, and I've just started breaking in the last pair of my old Scarpa Trek GTX's - a brilliant boot. I've gone to order some more, only to discover that they've changed the design so I've no idea if they'll fit me. Worse, they've gone up in price from £160 to £200.
Bu**er.
(I know, first world problems)
Which side of the leather vs man mad fibres hiking boot debate are you on ?
That's an intensely personal question, in that everyone will have their own preference, as all feet are different. My current boots are leather with goretex lining; but that is more because I have a slightly 'odd' ankle and have to take whatever boots fit me without crippling me (I cannot wear wellington boots, for instance). That's why when I get a pair that fits me well I order several pairs.
Basically, get whatever suits you for the sort of walking you are doing. Twenty years ago I used to have a pair of Saloman X-Adventure 7's that were brilliant on the hills, but terrible on hard surfaces: after five miles on tarmac my feet would feel as though they'd been hit by cricket bats, despite a good footbed insert. Other people swore by them; I swore at them.
Mr. Max, be interesting to know if anyone actually warned about this sort of thing before the eurozone came into being.
The EU themselves, which is why they imposed stringent debt and deficit criteria on those joining (which they proceeded to ignore). The likes of Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal should never have been allowed to join and even France should have taken a lot of medicine before being allowed in. That Eurozone looks a lot different (and much more sustainable) than today's Eurozone.
I think we're arguing semantics here as we agree on what'd be needed; you've combined the two amendments into a single Amendment - which does make logical sense.
That said, I'd word the second clause more explicitly. I don't think that as worded, it would necessarily override the 10th Amendment - particularly to a political Supreme Court. Repealing the 2nd Amendment would just leave the constitution silent on gun rights, which implicitly would mean (1) that under the Tenth, it was reserved to the states, and (2) although there was no constitutional right to bear arms, nor was there any explicit power to regulate them, so such power would have to be inferred from elsewhere. The Supreme Court might well decide that the second clause was superfluous as there's no legislation that could be passed that affects a repealed right (it's perhaps notable that the 21st amendment contains no such clause).
A second clause along the lines of
2) Congress shall have the power to regulate the ownership and usage of firearms by legislation.
Would be a lot stronger.
The point being, getting one Amendment through is a real struggle given the vast number of hurdles, getting two through is far more than twice as much work. So it needs to be rolled into one, something like the 21st Amendment (except with the opposite effect). I'd have no issue in principle with it being worded more strongly, the risk is that would make it harder to pass.
Edit - it is also an area where there would seem to be an unanswerable case for not putting in a sunset clause so there's no chance for a handful of states can filibuster it out as they did with the Equal Rights Amendment.
As an occassional festival goer (usually Lattitude), Labour Live has little appeal. The festival calender is too full at present, the lineup is poor, and this one happens as the World Cup commences.
Festivals not infrequently go broke, and are not for the inexperienced to arrange! better to sponser a stage at one of the established festivals with a sympathetic audience.
That seems eminently sensible. But the question is why Labour felt the need for a festival; it hardly seems to be the most efficient way of getting votes as most of the attendees will be believers anyway.
Jezza had a great time at Glastonbury last year, and with Michael Eavis giving his fields a rest this year Corbyn (or more likely those around him) thought he’d have a go at doing it himself. But without the expertise. Or the history. Or the bands.
Jeremy giving a happy foretaste of what a newly renationalised JezRail would be like.
If you want that, just look at the new trains ordered by the DfT and forced upon franchises. There is a great deal of disgust at the quality (or lack thereof) of the seats, which are seen to be far too hard for long-distance services and lack trays and cupholders. And no-one is willing to accept responsibility for the mess.
Oh, absolutely. I have no idea why the DfT is getting involved in specifying seat design. That's exactly the sort of business decision that should be left to the operating companies, who can balance the risk/reward equation. If left to government, you invariably get cheap and nasty, unless you hit a ministers pet enthusiasm or unless there are votes to be had in a more expensive option.
Labour (and the DfT) have an issue that the TOCs ordered lots of 'incompatible' trains. To get over this, Adonis thought it would be a wizard wheeze for the DfT to specify the trains, which would be forced upon the TOCs. And they've ordered expensive sh*t.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster that will cost passengers and the taxpayer dear for decades. Hitachi are laughing all the way to the bank.
Apparently one voter in six believes BoJo is up to being PM.
Who are these people (apart from HYUFD, obviously) and what are they smoking?
If this is correct, there are 2.7 m voters who think that Gavin Williamson is up to the job - although that's probably similar to the number who believe in vampires.
Apparently one voter in six believes BoJo is up to being PM.
Who are these people (apart from HYUFD, obviously) and what are they smoking?
Davidson to take over after May's narrow 2022 victory ?
Only if she's (a) an MP and (b) has Cabinet experience by then, neither of which seem likely.
I would say the next Foreign Secretary will be the front runner, but I don't know who that will be. Rory Stewart may still be a possibility despite his move to Justice. Javid might be in with a chance if he can get a move to the Treasury, but at the moment it seems unlikely.
Apparently one voter in six believes BoJo is up to being PM.
Who are these people (apart from HYUFD, obviously) and what are they smoking?
Davidson to take over after May's narrow 2022 victory ?
If the Tories win next time they will almost certainly lose the 2027 general election.
No party has won a fifth consecutive term in office for over a century
Yes, the Tories have a very slim chance of winning in 2027 if 2022 is another 92 so to speak.
In fact no party has won a 5th term in office since the Great Reform Act of 1832, the last time it happened was when the Duke of Wellington succeeded the Earl of Liverpool and won the 1830 general election. Though the Liberals won a landslide at the general election after that
Comments
Meanwhile, in international news:
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1001745396715151360
I don't believe Russia is a signatory to the European Arrest Warrant. Presumably this is an arrest warrant issued in accordance with the applicable laws and executed by Interpol in accordance with those laws. The EAW is unlikely to have anything to do with this.
If so your author isn't quite correct. What happened was the garrison commander (on instructions from Seeley, Secretary for War) asked his Protestant officers what they would do if given a choice between enforcing Home Rule in Ulster or resigning their commissions. They all said that while if ordered to move against the Ulster Volunteers they would do so, if given the choice they would resign.
There is no way they could have been hanged for that, as they had not refused an order, although asking serving officers such a stupid question does go some way to explaining why Balfour wasn't that bothered when Seeley defected from the Unionists over Free Trade.
Asquith was furious they had even been offered the choice and kept the War Office portfolio himself for the next year when Seeley inevitably resigned, until appointing Kitchener on the outbreak of the First World War.
A much more useful stick to beat the Unionists with is their threat to veto the Mutiny Act in the House of Lords, which would have disbanded the army until a new one could be passed. Now in the build up to World War that really would have been a traitorous and unpatriotic and truly disastrous move.
Which has been (IMO at least) well-handled by both the courts and the media.
As you say it's a problem without a possible solution - but one that at some point (possibly this year, possibly another 10 years away) that will eventually have to be dealt with.
Nowt in the constitution about the right to bear bullets is there?
Curragh was one of those strange incidents caused by an exhausted government with no majority led by a PM who wasn't up to it (even on the rare occasions he was sober) riven by factions between moderates led by the Foreign Secretary and extremists led by the Chancellor, trying to deal with a situation far beyond its capacity. In retrospect it looks silly. At the time it was a big deal because the atmosphere was so intense, but in reality the only significance it has was it caused the Unionists to draw back from disbanding the army.
Does any of that sound eerily familiar?
It's always seemed to me that the next Lehmans event would be greater than the first by a factor of 10 if not 100. No bailouts then. And there may be only a 30% rise in NFLX before it happens :-)
Hopefully there will be some people left alive who can look back and view the idea of a takeover of the roads by driverless cars with derision.
Mon Cher M. Verhofstadt
Please stick to foreign affairs, where you are a giant of wisdom, insight and integrity.
Please stay out of economics and domestic affairs, where you invariably end up looking like a muppet.
Je vous prie de croire, Monsieur, à l'assurance de mes salutations distinguées
Y Doethur
http://www.corbins.com/intro.htm
Ultimately unless you are an American citizen or have family there or live there why should we care more about what America's laws are than those of those 90 plus nations. Or don't their homicides matter as they are rarely if ever streamed across 24 hours news channels offering cheap feeds to the BBC and Sky?
I very much doubt the second amendment will ever be removed - the bar for constitutional amendments is very high given how many states you need. But it the end it's a matter for Americans just as equivalent laws say in Jamaica and Honduras - which have far higher murder rates - are a matter for those nations and we rarely get much coverage from those nations even though one of them has our Queen as head of state.
Sorry but we just obsess too much about America - it's for Americans to sort out.
It said Washington DC couldn't require that weapons be kept secured and unloaded as that infringed the Second Amendment.
Logically therefore, since loading requires bullets, you can't ban bullets.
Edit: @kle4 sorry, I hadn't seen your reply, which I assume was about the same thing.
On news coverage, they're an Anglophone nation with whom we share much history and political/cultural interests. Plus, coverage varies a lot according to prevalence of the media (which is one reason why a hurricane hitting Haiti gets less coverage than if it then hits the US, simply because there's less footage to show).
MEPs ask 60%+ questions on Lux as tax haven and why they ae blocking measures of reform
MEP give waffle on Europe, a poke at Brexit and then skates over tax avoidance.
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1001557310471319557
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1001756587504087040
Obviously it is usually unspoken that we know as outsiders our views on guns will not accord with the american experience, by and large, nor are most here impacted by it (though some would be) but what a dull world it would be if we were not to raise every topic that crosses our minds.
The Pope is catholic - shock news.
The gun culture, and the laws that support it, in the US are equivalent in nature, if not in scope, to the battle against slavery in the 19th century and for civil rights in the 20th, and require the same solution: outright opposition based on moral foundations. Equivocation and compromise will be opposed by the gun lobby and rolled back when given the chance.
The political solution as far as legislation goes, requires two constitutional changes; the repeal of the 2nd amendment, and the passing of a new one granting the federal Congress the power to legislate to regulate gun ownership / usage (this second one is needed so as to override the 10th amendment and, hence, the many state constitutions that incorporate their own version of the US 2nd Amendment).
If you want the requisite level of polite sarcasm, you have to say "mes salutations les plus distinguées".
Much like saying to a judge in court "With the greatest respect" means "You are a silly old fool, probably drunk, who wouldn't know the difference between a rule and a ruler if the latter hit you on the arse".
Italy is going to have to change eventually. ... The real question is how? It can do it in a planned, orderly way, which, paradoxically, is what the populists are proposing. Or it can delay and delay until the whole system collapses, which is what the president and most of the rest of the EU seems to prefer.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/dont-blame-the-populists-for-italys-chaos/
1) The Second Amendment is hereby repealed;
2) The Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.
Which simultaneously removes the right to bear arms and reserves that right to draw up new legislation to Washington.
That wouldn't run foul of the Tenth Amendment as it would clearly show gun law was retained to the centre and therefore state rights wouldn't apply.
They do need to stop fearing populist 'contagion' though, as though discontent is a virus they can isolate and it will die, rather than something they need to address.
I fear my French composition would disgrace a fairly bright five year old, although I can read it quite well when I have to.
1. with respect;
2. with great respect; and
3. with the greatest respect.
Each one in ascending (descending?) degrees of patronisation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44302146
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1001739501113434112
I certainly deserved the glass of champagne I awarded myself on the Eurostar on the way home!
Mind you relations between us thawed quite considerably as a result, which helped, though every time they sent something to me they would ring up first to have a chat as if they couldn't quite believe they'd found someone in England who spoke French fluently.
I have had a healthy respect for French regulators ever since.
I usually buy two or three pairs of walking boots at a time, and I've just started breaking in the last pair of my old Scarpa Trek GTX's - a brilliant boot. I've gone to order some more, only to discover that they've changed the design so I've no idea if they'll fit me. Worse, they've gone up in price from £160 to £200.
Bu**er.
(I know, first world problems)
http://www.dw.com/en/austria-plans-benefit-cuts-for-non-german-speaking-foreigners-refugees/a-43965191
That said, I'd word the second clause more explicitly. I don't think that as worded, it would necessarily override the 10th Amendment - particularly to a political Supreme Court. Repealing the 2nd Amendment would just leave the constitution silent on gun rights, which implicitly would mean (1) that under the Tenth, it was reserved to the states, and (2) although there was no constitutional right to bear arms, nor was there any explicit power to regulate them, so such power would have to be inferred from elsewhere. The Supreme Court might well decide that the second clause was superfluous as there's no legislation that could be passed that affects a repealed right (it's perhaps notable that the 21st amendment contains no such clause).
A second clause along the lines of
2) Congress shall have the power to regulate the ownership and usage of firearms by legislation.
Would be a lot stronger.
There seems to have been a real trend in men's shoes to a really narrow fit in the last few years.
Basically, get whatever suits you for the sort of walking you are doing. Twenty years ago I used to have a pair of Saloman X-Adventure 7's that were brilliant on the hills, but terrible on hard surfaces: after five miles on tarmac my feet would feel as though they'd been hit by cricket bats, despite a good footbed insert. Other people swore by them; I swore at them.
Edit - it is also an area where there would seem to be an unanswerable case for not putting in a sunset clause so there's no chance for a handful of states can filibuster it out as they did with the Equal Rights Amendment.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster that will cost passengers and the taxpayer dear for decades. Hitachi are laughing all the way to the bank.
Apparently one voter in six believes BoJo is up to being PM.
Who are these people (apart from HYUFD, obviously) and what are they smoking?
I would say the next Foreign Secretary will be the front runner, but I don't know who that will be. Rory Stewart may still be a possibility despite his move to Justice. Javid might be in with a chance if he can get a move to the Treasury, but at the moment it seems unlikely.
https://twitter.com/GeraintDaviesMP/status/1001592363742097409
No party has won a fifth consecutive term in office for over a century