... Clearly with point 4, the EU is well prepared for there to be no deal - and we are not. If it's to be Brexit humiliation for Britain then so be it but I'm not sure that is the best footing for the EU to be starting off with with their largest export partner heading forward.
They are not at all prepared. For a start if there's no deal then (paradoxically) the lack of an agreed backstop for Ireland gives Ireland a massive problem. Secondly if there is literally no deal Airbus can't sell any planes. Thirdly they haven't done anything about customs infrastructure at Calais. Fourthly they'd have a stonking great hole in their budget. Fifthly a key export market for them would be thrown into economic chaos.
All in all, it's unconscionable for either side. So they should just get on with discussing what the deal should be, rather than playing silly games over Ireland in particular.
Richard Leonard was pretty much unknown outside the Labour MSPs before his appointment and he still is. When I have heard him, and it's not often, he has actually sounded reasonably articulate but Scotland is dominated by 2 very strong women at present and it is difficult for anyone else to get a hearing.
At the same time as the reshuffle he abandoned the Education bill that he has been working on for 2 years. Taken with the named person fiasco it is difficult to see what has been achieved other than declining standards and an ever tighter grip on colleges and Universities that seeks to stamp out dissent.
And of course in the last day or so we had some incompetent foul mouthed harridan who had to resign as a new Minister before she was even officially appointed.
The SNP are living on the desire for independence. This has fallen off slightly but not by much and there is some evidence that the ongoing farce in Westminster is lifting it slightly again. It gives them a base that any other party in the UK would give their eye teeth for. But if Nicola is ultimately seen as not being able to deliver a second referendum all bets are off. It seems likely to me that Labour would be the main beneficiary in such a scenario.
Yes, the SNP is a massive tent based on a single issue, independence. It is not left wing or right wing: it is both, or neither. I'm not sure that England winning the World Cup in a fortnight's time will take independence off the menu. Come to think of it, Nicola should set up an inquiry to discover just what has gone wrong with Scottish football. It is not too long ago that Scotland qualified and England did not.
Not too long ago? It was 1978, wasn't it?
Scotland hasn't qualified for any major finals since Holyrood was established. There's clearly a connection.
... Clearly with point 4, the EU is well prepared for there to be no deal - and we are not. If it's to be Brexit humiliation for Britain then so be it but I'm not sure that is the best footing for the EU to be starting off with with their largest export partner heading forward.
They are not at all prepared. For a start if there's no deal then (paradoxically) the lack of an agreed backstop for Ireland gives Ireland a massive problem. Secondly if there is literally no deal Airbus can't sell any planes. Thirdly they haven't done anything about customs infrastructure at Calais. Fourthly they'd have a stonking great hole in their budget. Fifthly a key export market for them would be thrown into economic chaos.
All in all, it's unconscionable for either side. So they should just get on with discussing what the deal should be, rather than playing silly games over Ireland in particular.
The same way companies have to give you a cool off period, accept return of goods etc. If you offer online signup, you should also be required to ensure the customer can cancel online with similar ease.
Aren't they very different things? One is a high-level legal framework. The other is specifying how something is implemented.
You could ask companies to execute cancellation requests within 24hrs, but you really can't tell them how to do it.
(note irony of Labour voter pointing out to Tory voter the trouble of regulating business)
No, but you can frame regulations in terms of "not unduly burdensome", and the like, and then the regulator can assess individual cases against those principles.
... Clearly with point 4, the EU is well prepared for there to be no deal - and we are not. If it's to be Brexit humiliation for Britain then so be it but I'm not sure that is the best footing for the EU to be starting off with with their largest export partner heading forward.
They are not at all prepared. For a start if there's no deal then (paradoxically) the lack of an agreed backstop for Ireland gives Ireland a massive problem. Secondly if there is literally no deal Airbus can't sell any planes. Thirdly they haven't done anything about customs infrastructure at Calais. Fourthly they'd have a stonking great hole in their budget. Fifthly a key export market for them would be thrown into economic chaos.
All in all, it's unconscionable for either side...
It is - but there are plenty on both sides who seem quite happy to contemplate no deal.
... Clearly with point 4, the EU is well prepared for there to be no deal - and we are not. If it's to be Brexit humiliation for Britain then so be it but I'm not sure that is the best footing for the EU to be starting off with with their largest export partner heading forward.
They are not at all prepared. For a start if there's no deal then (paradoxically) the lack of an agreed backstop for Ireland gives Ireland a massive problem. Secondly if there is literally no deal Airbus can't sell any planes. Thirdly they haven't done anything about customs infrastructure at Calais. Fourthly they'd have a stonking great hole in their budget. Fifthly a key export market for them would be thrown into economic chaos.
All in all, it's unconscionable for either side. So they should just get on with discussing what the deal should be, rather than playing silly games over Ireland in particular.
There is much that the EU is doing wrong in these negotiations. However, the main problem at the moment is that Britain literally has no position on some points. Not even an unacceptable one.
Talking of deals, this has just been published by the EU.
Although I've no idea what it is actually saying. Must try harder, it sounds like.
Isn't it fairly clear?
1. There's far too much stuff outstanding for comfort. Gibraltar, for starters.
2. Northern Ireland is stuck.
3. The EU is waiting for British proposals. It will look again at its own ideas if Britain stops draping itself in union jacks and starts engaging what the EU thinks of as "sensibly".
4. There's a real risk this is all going pear-shaped. Plan accordingly.
On point 3, I don't think our proposals have been 'Union Jack' wrapped up at all recently; I think it is more the EU that is refusing to engage on a sensible basis. Currently it looks to me like the EU is interested in either a humiliating deal for Britain, or no deal.. Now that assesment might be borne of mischaracterisations of Barnier's utter inflexibility/requirement for Britain to be on bended knee in the press, and I hope the EU is being more reasonable than it appears. Clearly with point 4, the EU is well prepared preparing for there to be no deal - and we are not. If it's to be Brexit humiliation for Britain then so be it but I'm not sure that is the best footing for the EU to be starting off with with their largest export partner heading forward.
It is nothing to do with humiliation or punishment. Brexit means Brexit, as someone once said. If we are unprepared, that is no-ones fault but our own. Tusk saw May's "red lines" and took them at face value, stating "There is only hard Brexit or no Brexit". We chose this path, or at least 52% of us did.
In many ways our former state was ideal, with us being full economic members, but with opt outs on things like the Euro and Schengen, but it is much easier being a member and opting out, than a non-member trying to opt in on an ala carte basis. Non-members do not have the same representation or participation.
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
There is much that the EU is doing wrong in these negotiations. However, the main problem at the moment is that Britain literally has no position on some points. Not even an unacceptable one.
They already have a user portal, adding a “cancel subscription” button, with an “are you sure” button after it is no effort at all. They’re deliberately being arseholes in making it as difficult as possible to cancel an arrangement.
The Telegraph last year covered a number of stories about people trying to cancel Sky, that included people closing bank accounts, solicitors’ letters and small claims court cases. People got little or no response until journalists got involved.
Adding the button is easy. You're right. A two minute job. Hooking that up to make changes into backend systems like SAP, covering all use cases, is never cheap - even for seemingly trivial things.
Companies tend to like to bear that sort of integration cost for the things that make you money, not the things that cost you money.
How is it any different to GDPR?
GDPR specified rules and standards, but didn't specify how you implement them. You can use pigeons if you want.
I don't think that is right. In fact I believe a pre existing rule is that if you send an email it must have an unsubscribe link. No pigeons it has to be implemented online.
The CAN-SPAM regs specify that you have to use an "Internet based" mechanism. Since RFC 2549 specifies an internet protocol for birds "IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service". I think technically you could use a pigeon.
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
They had better not abolish civil partnerships. My other half would have some stern words on the subject.
(The government has apparently already assured Stonewall that it won't.)
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
I am perfectly relaxed about both now existing. If there are people who really feel a civil partnership is better fit for their beliefs than a marriage and vice versa, doesn’t really seem any of my business. I ain’t bovvvered.
F1: only first practice but right now the top 6 are separated by about a quarter of a second. 'tis rather close.
Yes, all quite tight at the top.
Also good to see Kubica in the Williams, dare I suggest that he’s going to be a lot more useful in providing feedback to the engineers than a couple of young pay drivers.
Autosport: Have to say the Mercedes looks stunning through Turn 1. Hard on the brakes, carrying good mid-corner speed and really stable on exit. Looks a cut above the rest. Edd Straw... Bet accordingly.
Yes. Bottas e/w for pole might be good value.
A pile of upgrades to the German cars this weekend.
And Red Bull are not taking the new MGUK (would mean a grid penalty), so I think they are out of the running for the front of the grid. Ferrari always run a bit slow in practice, so I think Vettel might also still have a shot at the front row.
... Clearly with point 4, the EU is well prepared for there to be no deal - and we are not. If it's to be Brexit humiliation for Britain then so be it but I'm not sure that is the best footing for the EU to be starting off with with their largest export partner heading forward.
They are not at all prepared. For a start if there's no deal then (paradoxically) the lack of an agreed backstop for Ireland gives Ireland a massive problem. Secondly if there is literally no deal Airbus can't sell any planes. Thirdly they haven't done anything about customs infrastructure at Calais. Fourthly they'd have a stonking great hole in their budget. Fifthly a key export market for them would be thrown into economic chaos.
All in all, it's unconscionable for either side. So they should just get on with discussing what the deal should be, rather than playing silly games over Ireland in particular.
The solution to Ireland has, in my view, been obvious from the beginning. If we have a FTA with agreed rules of origin with the EU which has the MaxFac technology built into it (as all EU countries are committed to have by 2020 anyway between each other) then the border remains soft and open. The absurdity has been pretending that even if we don't have such a deal with the EU as a whole we can still somehow have it with one bit of the EU in Ireland. That was always ridiculous and it really is well past time we said so.
So the EU either agrees such a deal with us, which is what we want, or lets Ireland face the consequences of the alternative.
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
They had better not abolish civil partnerships. My other half would have some stern words on the subject.
(The government has apparently already assured Stonewall that it won't.)
Live and let live. But I still think the Supreme Court deliberating on whether a hetrosexual couple can have a civil partnership was completely absurd. I have a bad feeling that such ridiculous nonsense was almost certainly publically funded.
There is no incentive to have this. Why invest serious £££ developing IT systems that reduce revenue?
If you're only looking at the next 12 to 24 months (for example if you have a shitty internal incentive structure where there's a whole layer of middle-management desperate to meet short-term targets then move on to another job) then none, you want to make it hard to cancel.
But if you're thinking about the next 10 or 20 years - will people use your service again, will they recommend it to friends or will they hate you and tell friends to run a mile - you need to put last impressions first.
PS I don't think you have Softbank in Britain, but if you ever get it, don't use it.
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
They had better not abolish civil partnerships. My other half would have some stern words on the subject.
(The government has apparently already assured Stonewall that it won't.)
Well he's in a CP himself, he wants existing CPs to grandfather to marriage.
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
They had better not abolish civil partnerships. My other half would have some stern words on the subject.
(The government has apparently already assured Stonewall that it won't.)
Live and let live. But I still think the Supreme Court deliberating on whether a hetrosexual couple can have a civil partnership was completely absurd. I have a bad feeling that such ridiculous nonsense was almost certainly publically funded.
It was only absurd as the law was an ass. Legislation for the legalisation of homosexual marriage should have included the legalisation of heterosexual civil partnerships. Or abolish civil partnerships altogether and renamed them marriage.
There is no incentive to have this. Why invest serious £££ developing IT systems that reduce revenue?
If you're only looking at the next 12 to 24 months (for example if you have a shitty internal incentive structure where there's a whole layer of middle-management desperate to meet short-term targets then move on to another job) then none, you want to make it hard to cancel.
But if you're thinking about the next 10 or 20 years - will people use your service again, will they recommend it to friends or will they hate you and tell friends to run a mile - you need to put last impressions first.
PS I don't think you have Softbank in Britain, but if you ever get it, don't use it.
Fox jr and I just use Now TV on a 1 week or 1 month ticket when we want to watch a match. It works fine, and no commitment or hassle.
There is no incentive to have this. Why invest serious £££ developing IT systems that reduce revenue?
If you're only looking at the next 12 to 24 months (for example if you have a shitty internal incentive structure where there's a whole layer of middle-management desperate to meet short-term targets then move on to another job) then none, you want to make it hard to cancel.
But if you're thinking about the next 10 or 20 years - will people use your service again, will they recommend it to friends or will they hate you and tell friends to run a mile - you need to put last impressions first.
PS I don't think you have Softbank in Britain, but if you ever get it, don't use it.
First off, I am not advocating shoddy practice or bad UX. Just pointing out why this is harder than it looks.
Does any digital outfit look 20 years ahead? And would there be any point if they did? Would a strategy born in 1998 be relevent today?
You're doing well if you get a good 12-18 month view.
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
I am perfectly relaxed about both now existing. If there are people who really feel a civil partnership is better fit for their beliefs than a marriage and vice versa, doesn’t really seem any of my business. I ain’t bovvvered.
I would have chosen a Civil Partnership, if I'd had the choice. However, as I discovered yesterday that this is a position not universally shared in our household, it is probably just as well that it wasn't an option at the time.
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
They had better not abolish civil partnerships. My other half would have some stern words on the subject.
(The government has apparently already assured Stonewall that it won't.)
Live and let live. But I still think the Supreme Court deliberating on whether a hetrosexual couple can have a civil partnership was completely absurd. I have a bad feeling that such ridiculous nonsense was almost certainly publically funded.
It was only absurd as the law was an ass. Legislation for the legalisation of homosexual marriage should have included the legalisation of heterosexual civil partnerships. Or abolish civil partnerships altogether and renamed them marriage.
The latter does seem the intention. The government's position before the Supreme Court was that they wanted to see how Civil Partnerships are regarded now that marriage for gay couples is possible. They wanted to give things a bit of time to "settle down" before making a final decision.
From my point of view in a largely non religious country it seems a completely unnecessary complication and I don't see why CPs should not now be called marriages. I would be interested in whether Alastair or his partner thinks differently.
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
They had better not abolish civil partnerships. My other half would have some stern words on the subject.
(The government has apparently already assured Stonewall that it won't.)
Live and let live. But I still think the Supreme Court deliberating on whether a hetrosexual couple can have a civil partnership was completely absurd. I have a bad feeling that such ridiculous nonsense was almost certainly publically funded.
In the great scheme of things, does that really matter ?
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
They had better not abolish civil partnerships. My other half would have some stern words on the subject.
(The government has apparently already assured Stonewall that it won't.)
Live and let live. But I still think the Supreme Court deliberating on whether a hetrosexual couple can have a civil partnership was completely absurd. I have a bad feeling that such ridiculous nonsense was almost certainly publically funded.
It was only absurd as the law was an ass. Legislation for the legalisation of homosexual marriage should have included the legalisation of heterosexual civil partnerships. Or abolish civil partnerships altogether and renamed them marriage.
The latter does seem the intention. The government's position before the Supreme Court was that they wanted to see how Civil Partnerships are regarded now that marriage for gay couples is possible. They wanted to give things a bit of time to "settle down" before making a final decision.
From my point of view in a largely non religious country it seems a completely unnecessary complication and I don't see why CPs should not now be called marriages. I would be interested in whether Alastair or his partner thinks differently.
We only decided to get hitched in the first place for legal reasons; both of us were quite unsentimental about it beforehand (I know, can you believe it of me?). When we actually had the ceremony, both of us were much more moved than we expected to be.
I quite like the idea of converting it to a marriage. My other half, when asked, has given me four answers: "Yes"; "No"; "I'll think about it"; and "That depends how good a party we're going to have".
He's deeply suspicious about the couple behind the Supreme Court case. He has any number of amusing but highly defamatory theories.
... Clearly with point 4, the EU is well prepared for there to be no deal - and we are not. If it's to be Brexit humiliation for Britain then so be it but I'm not sure that is the best footing for the EU to be starting off with with their largest export partner heading forward.
They are not at all prepared. For a start if there's no deal then (paradoxically) the lack of an agreed backstop for Ireland gives Ireland a massive problem. Secondly if there is literally no deal Airbus can't sell any planes. Thirdly they haven't done anything about customs infrastructure at Calais. Fourthly they'd have a stonking great hole in their budget. Fifthly a key export market for them would be thrown into economic chaos.
All in all, it's unconscionable for either side. So they should just get on with discussing what the deal should be, rather than playing silly games over Ireland in particular.
There is much that the EU is doing wrong in these negotiations. However, the main problem at the moment is that Britain literally has no position on some points. Not even an unacceptable one.
There are two main interlinked problems - the UK does not see what it can offer by way any sort of settlement with an EU that is determined not to offer a deal that could form an acceptable relationship for other members with the EU. Ensuring none of the other 27 will say "You know, that arrangement will do me too" seems to underpin the EU's Brexit stance at every turn.
The EU could have dealt with Cameron, offered a form of associate membership to those who were not in the Euro that was more relaxed on the "fundamentals". It would have contained the contagion whilst keeping a cash settlement flowing from the UK - and everybody could happily continue to trade. Cameron would have had a meaningful renegotiation and still be a much-lauded PM.
The lack of thought from the very top of the EU on how to deal with the UK has been a massive failing. It continues to be so. It is a mixure of fear, hubris, laziness and contempt. It has served 28 countries very badly. A no-deal Brexit is a real risk as a consequence.
Is does seem that the word "marriage" means a lot more to some people than the legal reality behind it, for some in a positive, and others in a negative, sense.
This is, I think, also applicable to Brexit. Maybe Brexit In Name Only is all that some of the Leave voters ever really wanted? A civil partnership with Europe, rather than a marriage.
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
They had better not abolish civil partnerships. My other half would have some stern words on the subject.
(The government has apparently already assured Stonewall that it won't.)
Live and let live. But I still think the Supreme Court deliberating on whether a hetrosexual couple can have a civil partnership was completely absurd. I have a bad feeling that such ridiculous nonsense was almost certainly publically funded.
In the great scheme of things, does that really matter ?
Alastair once did a very informative thread on the differences between CP and Marriage in the context of the gay marriage bill a few years ago. His conclusion was that, some obscure pensions things aside (from a pensions lawyer) it was mostly the name.
At Westminster though Corbyn can survive making few further gains from the SNP as the SNP would likely back him in a motion of confidence over the Tories anyway
There is no incentive to have this. Why invest serious £££ developing IT systems that reduce revenue?
If you're only looking at the next 12 to 24 months (for example if you have a shitty internal incentive structure where there's a whole layer of middle-management desperate to meet short-term targets then move on to another job) then none, you want to make it hard to cancel.
But if you're thinking about the next 10 or 20 years - will people use your service again, will they recommend it to friends or will they hate you and tell friends to run a mile - you need to put last impressions first.
PS I don't think you have Softbank in Britain, but if you ever get it, don't use it.
First off, I am not advocating shoddy practice or bad UX. Just pointing out why this is harder than it looks.
Does any digital outfit look 20 years ahead? And would there be any point if they did? You're doing well if you get a good 12-18 month view.
You don't need to know exactly what's coming to know that it's better to have people love you rather than people who hate you. I don't know about 20 years, but there are a few great digital companies that I've been using for more than 10. One that springs to mind is a great hosting company based in York called Bytemark. Mobile phones are similar - I had a contract with J-Phone, which turned into Vodafone, which turned into Softbank, for maybe 15 years, before the shitty experience cancelling one contract made me cancel another.
There's nothing *hard* about doing this stuff right; They know how to do it right when they're signing people up. The hard part is structuring a big organization in a way that doesn't give managers weird incentives and make them do it wrong on purpose.
At Westminster though Corbyn can survive making few further gains from the SNP as the SNP would likely back him in a motion of confidence over the Tories anyway
Like they did in 1979?
In general though, I agree. The SNP will never vote to directly put or sustain the Tories in power. Even so, I don't think that necessarily translates to them automatically backing Labour, if the third option is an election where they expect to make gains and/or advance the cause of independence.
I've had a debate on Facebook about this, my friend believes civil partnerships ought to be abolished, and I've argued that I think having both civil partnerships and marriage exist is useful even if the 'effective contract' is the same.
They had better not abolish civil partnerships. My other half would have some stern words on the subject.
(The government has apparently already assured Stonewall that it won't.)
Live and let live. But I still think the Supreme Court deliberating on whether a hetrosexual couple can have a civil partnership was completely absurd. I have a bad feeling that such ridiculous nonsense was almost certainly publically funded.
In the great scheme of things, does that really matter ?
Alastair once did an very informative thread on the differences between CP and Marriage in the context of the gay marriage bill a few years ago. His conclusion was that, some obscure pensions things aside (from a pensions lawyer) it was mostly the name.
Well, quite. Having the two different labels is clearly a thing for some people. I don't see why confirming that is a problem.
... Clearly with point 4, the EU is well prepared for there to be no deal - and we are not. If it's to be Brexit humiliation for Britain then so be it but I'm not sure that is the best footing for the EU to be starting off with with their largest export partner heading forward.
They are not at all prepared. For a start if there's no deal then (paradoxically) the lack of an agreed backstop for Ireland gives Ireland a massive problem. Secondly if there is literally no deal Airbus can't sell any planes. Thirdly they haven't done anything about customs infrastructure at Calais. Fourthly they'd have a stonking great hole in their budget. Fifthly a key export market for them would be thrown into economic chaos.
All in all, it's unconscionable for either side. So they should just get on with discussing what the deal should be, rather than playing silly games over Ireland in particular.
There is much that the EU is doing wrong in these negotiations. However, the main problem at the moment is that Britain literally has no position on some points. Not even an unacceptable one.
There are two main interlinked problems - the UK does not see what it can offer by way any sort of settlement with an EU that is determined not to offer a deal that could form an acceptable relationship for other members with the EU. Ensuring none of the other 27 will say "You know, that arrangement will do me too" seems to underpin the EU's Brexit stance at every turn.
The EU could have dealt with Cameron, offered a form of associate membership to those who were not in the Euro that was more relaxed on the "fundamentals". It would have contained the contagion whilst keeping a cash settlement flowing from the UK - and everybody could happily continue to trade. Cameron would have had a meaningful renegotiation and still be a much-lauded PM.
The lack of thought from the very top of the EU on how to deal with the UK has been a massive failing. It continues to be so. It is a mixure of fear, hubris, laziness and contempt. It has served 28 countries very badly. A no-deal Brexit is a real risk as a consequence.
This process began because the UK misunderstood the nature of the EU and has hit the wall because the UK misunderstands the nature of the UK. A Brexit settlement for the UK as a whole on the terms that were sold is simply a logical impossibility, which immediately transforms the negotiations into an existential struggle.
How far do the Scottish media report everything from a Scottish angle? - e.g. do splits in the Cabinet over Brexit get much coverage, or are they seen as relating to a faraway country?
There is a lot of subtle, intrinsic bias. Last time I was up there I noticed that they don't call people, 'people', they call them 'Scots'.
In the UK news, "10,000 people died from Cancer this year" In the Scottish news, "10,000 Scots died from Cancer this year"
Subtle, but important and pervades everything.
All the people who died of cancer in the UK were Scots? Jeez, things are worse than I thought.
Exactly. The media use "Scots" to make it clear it is a Scottish number, not a UK number. Conspiracy theories are overrated (if occasionally fun).
Standard rule for the Scottish mainstream media is to ignore comparisons with the UK where it portrays Scotland and the Scottish (SNP) Government in a good light and include them when it shows the reverse.
This process began because the UK misunderstood the nature of the EU and has hit the wall because the UK misunderstands the nature of the UK. A Brexit settlement for the UK as a whole on the terms that were sold is simply a logical impossibility, which immediately transforms the negotiations into an existential struggle.
1. "the nature of the EU" has changed massively since 1973. It was not the same EEC that the British people voted for in 1975. The EU determinedly, stealthily, sneakily moved away from the UK's vision of what the EEC was about.
2. That said, a deal was never the "logical impossibility" you assert, because the EU is an institution that has survived on a diet of fudge.
It just decided that it only wanted to consume Belgian chocolate flavoured fudge. It didn't fancy shit-flavoured fudge - even though it was going to be paid £40 billion to chow down on it.
Live and let live. But I still think the Supreme Court deliberating on whether a hetrosexual couple can have a civil partnership was completely absurd. I have a bad feeling that such ridiculous nonsense was almost certainly publically funded.
It was only absurd as the law was an ass. Legislation for the legalisation of homosexual marriage should have included the legalisation of heterosexual civil partnerships. Or abolish civil partnerships altogether and renamed them marriage.
The latter does seem the intention. The government's position before the Supreme Court was that they wanted to see how Civil Partnerships are regarded now that marriage for gay couples is possible. They wanted to give things a bit of time to "settle down" before making a final decision.
From my point of view in a largely non religious country it seems a completely unnecessary complication and I don't see why CPs should not now be called marriages. I would be interested in whether Alastair or his partner thinks differently.
We only decided to get hitched in the first place for legal reasons; both of us were quite unsentimental about it beforehand (I know, can you believe it of me?). When we actually had the ceremony, both of us were much more moved than we expected to be.
I quite like the idea of converting it to a marriage. My other half, when asked, has given me four answers: "Yes"; "No"; "I'll think about it"; and "That depends how good a party we're going to have".
He's deeply suspicious about the couple behind the Supreme Court case. He has any number of amusing but highly defamatory theories.
I share his suspicions.
I got married in a church even though I am not religious. I did this for my better half and even more for her parents who were much more religious. But, despite thinking it would mean relatively little beyond my word which I had already given, there is something about such a public ceremony in front of friends and family which makes it truly profound. And then the damn photographer bored us all to tears.
At Westminster though Corbyn can survive making few further gains from the SNP as the SNP would likely back him in a motion of confidence over the Tories anyway
Like they did in 1979?
In general though, I agree. The SNP will never vote to directly put or sustain the Tories in power. Even so, I don't think that necessarily translates to them automatically backing Labour, if the third option is an election where they expect to make gains and/or advance the cause of independence.
That was in the dying days of a Labour government and the SNP still did not vote for the Tories.
It is highly unlikely a first election followed by a second election would make any difference to the SNP seat total so they would most likely prop up Labour if Corbyn needed their support to become PM but use their support as a bargaining tool
And then the damn photographer bored us all to tears.
I have three top tips for those getting married about the day itself.
1) Take charge of the photographer. It's your day not his/hers, and I can pretty well guarantee you that you aren't going to be looking at the photos more than once in a blue moon, so don't waste endless time setting up pictures you're not going to look at. Your guests will thank you too. 2) Seat people on tables by age. 3) No matter how much the venue tries to persuade you otherwise, you don't need much food later in the evening - everyone will have eaten and drunk plenty by that stage and won't be interested.
This process began because the UK misunderstood the nature of the EU and has hit the wall because the UK misunderstands the nature of the UK. A Brexit settlement for the UK as a whole on the terms that were sold is simply a logical impossibility, which immediately transforms the negotiations into an existential struggle.
1. "the nature of the EU" has changed massively since 1973. It was not the same EEC that the British people voted for in 1975. The EU determinedly, stealthily, sneakily moved away from the UK's vision of what the EEC was about.
2. That said, a deal was never the "logical impossibility" you assert, because the EU is an institution that has survived on a diet of fudge.
It just decided that it only wanted to consume Belgian chocolate flavoured fudge. It didn't fancy shit-flavoured fudge - even though it was going to be paid £40 billion to chow down on it.
No, once you accept the constraint that there must be no border infrastructure or checks in Northern Ireland, a UK-wide deal which meets May's red lines becomes impossible. It's not just a question of your preferred flavour of fudge.
How far do the Scottish media report everything from a Scottish angle? - e.g. do splits in the Cabinet over Brexit get much coverage, or are they seen as relating to a faraway country?
There is a lot of subtle, intrinsic bias. Last time I was up there I noticed that they don't call people, 'people', they call them 'Scots'.
In the UK news, "10,000 people died from Cancer this year" In the Scottish news, "10,000 Scots died from Cancer this year"
Subtle, but important and pervades everything.
All the people who died of cancer in the UK were Scots? Jeez, things are worse than I thought.
Exactly. The media use "Scots" to make it clear it is a Scottish number, not a UK number. Conspiracy theories are overrated (if occasionally fun).
Standard rule for the Scottish mainstream media is to ignore comparisons with the UK where it portrays Scotland and the Scottish (SNP) Government in a good light and include them when it shows the reverse.
Are you sure you have an adequate sample size for the first category?
Only 30 per cent of the British public have confidence Mrs May will obtain a deal that is good for Britain, which is down from 34 in May and 37 in March.
Two thirds — 67 per cent — do not think she can pull it off, up from 59 per cent in March and 63 per cent in May.
Over four in 10 think she has been “weaker” in the talks than the EU side. Only eight per cent think the Prime Minister has been “stronger”.
Three in 10 think the UK Government will be to blame if talks fail. Just 18 per cent would blame the EU and nearly half would blame both sides equally.
Economic optimism has fallen, with 54 per cent predicting things will get worse in the year ahead, up from 46 per cent in May.
This process began because the UK misunderstood the nature of the EU and has hit the wall because the UK misunderstands the nature of the UK. A Brexit settlement for the UK as a whole on the terms that were sold is simply a logical impossibility, which immediately transforms the negotiations into an existential struggle.
1. "the nature of the EU" has changed massively since 1973. It was not the same EEC that the British people voted for in 1975. The EU determinedly, stealthily, sneakily moved away from the UK's vision of what the EEC was about.
2. That said, a deal was never the "logical impossibility" you assert, because the EU is an institution that has survived on a diet of fudge.
It just decided that it only wanted to consume Belgian chocolate flavoured fudge. It didn't fancy shit-flavoured fudge - even though it was going to be paid £40 billion to chow down on it.
No, once you accept the constraint that there must be no border infrastructure or checks in Northern Ireland, a UK-wide deal which meets May's red lines becomes impossible. It's not just a question of your preferred flavour of fudge.
The problem is that the UK definition of no border in NI is very different from the EU version of the same.
The UK is quite happy to accept any goods northound with no border, the EU are constrained by the requirement that all their external borders are policed the same way. That’s a much bigger problem for the EU than it is for the UK.
1. "the nature of the EU" has changed massively since 1973. It was not the same EEC that the British people voted for in 1975. The EU determinedly, stealthily, sneakily moved away from the UK's vision of what the EEC was about.
Britain: We want a single market. EU: Here is a single market.
Britain: We want a financial passport EU: Here is a financial passport
Britain: We want expansion to the east EU: Here is expansion to the east. Are you sure you want people from these countries to be able to move to your country straight away? Britain: Totally, our economy is [rocket emoji] and we need the guys
And then the damn photographer bored us all to tears.
I have three top tips for those getting married about the day itself.
1) Take charge of the photographer. It's your day not his/hers, and I can pretty well guarantee you that you aren't going to be looking at the photos more than once in a blue moon, so don't waste endless time setting up pictures you're not going to look at. Your guests will thank you too. 2) Seat people on tables by age. 3) No matter how much the venue tries to persuade you otherwise, you don't need much food later in the evening - everyone will have eaten and drunk plenty by that stage and won't be interested.
I have no tips for after the day itself.
In my view, it's more important to spend money on the food than the alcohol (true of all functions, really). There's nothing worse than a function where everyone is getting pissed, but there's little to eat.
This process began because the UK misunderstood the nature of the EU and has hit the wall because the UK misunderstands the nature of the UK. A Brexit settlement for the UK as a whole on the terms that were sold is simply a logical impossibility, which immediately transforms the negotiations into an existential struggle.
1. "the nature of the EU" has changed massively since 1973. It was not the same EEC that the British people voted for in 1975. The EU determinedly, stealthily, sneakily moved away from the UK's vision of what the EEC was about.
2. That said, a deal was never the "logical impossibility" you assert, because the EU is an institution that has survived on a diet of fudge.
It just decided that it only wanted to consume Belgian chocolate flavoured fudge. It didn't fancy shit-flavoured fudge - even though it was going to be paid £40 billion to chow down on it.
No, once you accept the constraint that there must be no border infrastructure or checks in Northern Ireland, a UK-wide deal which meets May's red lines becomes impossible. It's not just a question of your preferred flavour of fudge.
The problem is that the UK definition of no border in NI is very different from the EU version of the same.
The UK is quite happy to accept any goods norrhbound with no border, the EU are constrained by the requirement that all their external borders are policed the same way. That’s a much bigger problem for the EU than it is for the UK.
The EU definition is the UK definition, and it's now in the EU Withdrawal Act which explicitly rules out authority to:
(a) diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
And then the damn photographer bored us all to tears.
I have three top tips for those getting married about the day itself.
1) Take charge of the photographer. It's your day not his/hers, and I can pretty well guarantee you that you aren't going to be looking at the photos more than once in a blue moon, so don't waste endless time setting up pictures you're not going to look at. Your guests will thank you too. 2) Seat people on tables by age. 3) No matter how much the venue tries to persuade you otherwise, you don't need much food later in the evening - everyone will have eaten and drunk plenty by that stage and won't be interested.
I have no tips for after the day itself.
As a groom, don’t drink too much champagne on the big day.
Apparently it leads to performance issues later on that night, and that’s not an auspicious way to start a marriage.
So my friends tell me, as a good Muslim boy I didn’t drink any champagne on my wedding day.
What's happened to SLAB in Scotland is part of the European rejection of centrist,nominally left,governing parties across the continent,Pasok,PvDa,Irish Labour etc.That identity and their arrogant governance still taints SLAB and change just takes time.By 2022 that needs to become a historical legacy which is now rejected.
Well, now that there is a temporary hiatus in the football with England reverting to the mean, may I make a small boast?
Yes? Good.
Last night I went to an awards ceremony to celebrate my nomination (by Global Investigations Review) as one of 100 remarkable women in investigations worldwide for 2018. (The last one was in 2015 so I shall live off this for the next 3 years.). Much food and wine was consumed. It was lovely to see so many women in this space and, despite having spent the last few weeks in the Lake District consuming far too much nice food, I didn't look too awful in the photos.
I am celebrating today by doing some serious gardening which, in this heat, is remarkable in itself. I will update you on how effective a cure for a hangover it is later.......
The Nabavi wedding photographs seem to have been mislaid. I can't think how, but it is just as well given my hairstyle at the time. Well, it was the 1970s.
Well, now that there is a temporary hiatus in the football with England reverting to the mean, may I make a small boast?
Yes? Good.
Last night I went to an awards ceremony to celebrate my nomination (by Global Investigations Review) as one of 100 remarkable women in investigations worldwide for 2018. (The last one was in 2015 so I shall live off this for the next 3 years.). Much food and wine was consumed. It was lovely to see so many women in this space and, despite having spent the last few weeks in the Lake District consuming far too much nice food, I didn't look too awful in the photos.
I am celebrating today by doing some serious gardening which, in this heat, is remarkable in itself. I will update you on how effective a cure for a hangover it is later.......
Congratulations. You can spend the hotter part of the day updating your website!
Well, now that there is a temporary hiatus in the football with England reverting to the mean, may I make a small boast?
Yes? Good.
Last night I went to an awards ceremony to celebrate my nomination (by Global Investigations Review) as one of 100 remarkable women in investigations worldwide for 2018. (The last one was in 2015 so I shall live off this for the next 3 years.). Much food and wine was consumed. It was lovely to see so many women in this space and, despite having spent the last few weeks in the Lake District consuming far too much nice food, I didn't look too awful in the photos.
I am celebrating today by doing some serious gardening which, in this heat, is remarkable in itself. I will update you on how effective a cure for a hangover it is later.......
Well done, I’m sure the garden will be happy to celebrate with you!
Well, now that there is a temporary hiatus in the football with England reverting to the mean, may I make a small boast?
Yes? Good.
Last night I went to an awards ceremony to celebrate my nomination (by Global Investigations Review) as one of 100 remarkable women in investigations worldwide for 2018. (The last one was in 2015 so I shall live off this for the next 3 years.). Much food and wine was consumed. It was lovely to see so many women in this space and, despite having spent the last few weeks in the Lake District consuming far too much nice food, I didn't look too awful in the photos.
I am celebrating today by doing some serious gardening which, in this heat, is remarkable in itself. I will update you on how effective a cure for a hangover it is later.......
This process began because the UK misunderstood the nature of the EU and has hit the wall because the UK misunderstands the nature of the UK. A Brexit settlement for the UK as a whole on the terms that were sold is simply a logical impossibility, which immediately transforms the negotiations into an existential struggle.
1. "the nature of the EU" has changed massively since 1973. It was not the same EEC that the British people voted for in 1975. The EU determinedly, stealthily, sneakily moved away from the UK's vision of what the EEC was about.
2. That said, a deal was never the "logical impossibility" you assert, because the EU is an institution that has survived on a diet of fudge.
It just decided that it only wanted to consume Belgian chocolate flavoured fudge. It didn't fancy shit-flavoured fudge - even though it was going to be paid £40 billion to chow down on it.
No, once you accept the constraint that there must be no border infrastructure or checks in Northern Ireland, a UK-wide deal which meets May's red lines becomes impossible. It's not just a question of your preferred flavour of fudge.
The problem is that the UK definition of no border in NI is very different from the EU version of the same.
The UK is quite happy to accept any goods norrhbound with no border, the EU are constrained by the requirement that all their external borders are policed the same way. That’s a much bigger problem for the EU than it is for the UK.
The EU definition is the UK definition, and it's now in the EU Withdrawal Act which explicitly rules out authority to:
(a) diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
It says that the act itself cannot be used for those purposes. It does not say that those things cannot be done under other laws. It does not ban either diminishing North South Cooperation or a hard border. It just says the act does not be used as justification for them. If they happen that is not illegal.
(Removed reference to Evening standard front page) And twats like you, Mr Osborne, stirring s**t among the government you were part of only a couple of years ago.
The Nabavi wedding photographs seem to have been mislaid. I can't think how, but it is just as well given my hairstyle at the time. Well, it was the 1970s.
I am unable to comment on speculation that no pictures of the JackW/MrsW nuptials exist as photography had yet to be invented !!
This process began because the UK misunderstood the nature of the EU and has hit the wall because the UK misunderstands the nature of the UK. A Brexit settlement for the UK as a whole on the terms that were sold is simply a logical impossibility, which immediately transforms the negotiations into an existential struggle.
1. "the nature of the EU" has changed massively since 1973. It was not the same EEC that the British people voted for in 1975. The EU determinedly, stealthily, sneakily moved away from the UK's vision of what the EEC was about.
2. That said, a deal was never the "logical impossibility" you assert, because the EU is an institution that has survived on a diet of fudge.
It just decided that it only wanted to consume Belgian chocolate flavoured fudge. It didn't fancy shit-flavoured fudge - even though it was going to be paid £40 billion to chow down on it.
No, once you accept the constraint that there must be no border infrastructure or checks in Northern Ireland, a UK-wide deal which meets May's red lines becomes impossible. It's not just a question of your preferred flavour of fudge.
The problem is that the UK definition of no border in NI is very different from the EU version of the same.
The UK is quite happy to accept any goods norrhbound with no border, the EU are constrained by the requirement that all their external borders are policed the same way. That’s a much bigger problem for the EU than it is for the UK.
The EU definition is the UK definition, and it's now in the EU Withdrawal Act which explicitly rules out authority to:
(a) diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
It says that the act itself cannot be used for those purposes. It does not say that those things cannot be done under other laws. It does not ban either diminishing North South Cooperation or a hard border. It just says the act does not be used as justification for them. If they happen that is not illegal.
It can happen only if there is no deal and another legal basis can be found for it.
It can happen only if there is no deal and another legal basis can be found for it.
Nope. It can happen if the either UK or the EU decide they want it. Again the clauses you quote only prevent the act being used to justify a hard border, It does not in any way prevent a hard border if the Government of either side decide they want one.
The Nabavi wedding photographs seem to have been mislaid. I can't think how, but it is just as well given my hairstyle at the time. Well, it was the 1970s.
I am unable to comment on speculation that no pictures of the JackW/MrsW nuptials exist as photography had yet to be invented !!
Surely that young Mr Holbein would have done a painting for you?
The Nabavi wedding photographs seem to have been mislaid. I can't think how, but it is just as well given my hairstyle at the time. Well, it was the 1970s.
I am unable to comment on speculation that no pictures of the JackW/MrsW nuptials exist as photography had yet to be invented !!
Surely that young Mr Holbein would have done a painting for you?
It can happen only if there is no deal and another legal basis can be found for it.
Nope. It can happen if the either UK or the EU decide they want it. Again the clauses you quote only prevent the act being used to justify a hard border, It does not in any way prevent a hard border if the Government of either side decide they want one.
Read this sentence again. If there is a deal, it cannot be a deal which requires any kind of border.
create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
It can happen only if there is no deal and another legal basis can be found for it.
Nope. It can happen if the either UK or the EU decide they want it. Again the clauses you quote only prevent the act being used to justify a hard border, It does not in any way prevent a hard border if the Government of either side decide they want one.
Read this sentence again. If there is a deal, it cannot be a deal which requires any kind of border.
create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
The agreement will be : generally ignore the border like we do now.
The - hopefully - decisive Cabinet meeting at Chequers isn't scheduled until the end of next week. Attempting to speed up negotiations before then is a bit pointless, so a bit cheeky for the EU to ask. They must have known the UK wouldn't have been ready.
But I suppose they wanted to make that obvious because it's absurd for May to ask to accelerate the talks when she isn't ready to do so. If she had the Chequers Cabinet meeting before the EU summit then she could have invited the EU for next week (or this weekend) as a concrete sign of intent.
It can happen only if there is no deal and another legal basis can be found for it.
Nope. It can happen if the either UK or the EU decide they want it. Again the clauses you quote only prevent the act being used to justify a hard border, It does not in any way prevent a hard border if the Government of either side decide they want one.
Read this sentence again. If there is a deal, it cannot be a deal which requires any kind of border.
create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
That is a clever but utterly dishonest bit of editing by you there Mr Glenn.
The full clause states:
"Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which— (a) diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or (b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU."
See that first sentence? The one you accidently on purpose missed out?
"Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which.."
All it is saying is that the act cannot be used as a cause for a hard border or reduced cooperation. It in no way says that they cannot happen. It does not ban them at all nor set any conditions on their existence other than the fact that the specific act cannot be used to authorise them.
I would like to say I would have expected better of you but to be honest I don't.
All it is saying is that the act cannot be used as an cause for a hard border or reduced cooperation. It in no way says that they cannot happen. It does not ban them at all nor set any conditions on their existence other than the fact that the specific act cannot be used to authorise them.
I would like to say I would have expected better of you but to be honest I don't.
It constrains what can be agreed with the EU. If you want a no deal situation, go for it.
The - hopefully - decisive Cabinet meeting at Chequers isn't scheduled until the end of next week. Attempting to speed up negotiations before then is a bit pointless, so a bit cheeky for the EU to ask. They must have known the UK wouldn't have been ready.
But I suppose they wanted to make that obvious because it's absurd for May to ask to accelerate the talks when she isn't ready to do so. If she had the Chequers Cabinet meeting before the EU summit then she could have invited the EU for next week (or this weekend) as a concrete sign of intent.
FFS, this is the most urgent issue the UK has had to deal with since WW2 and they're ludicrously behind, why do they need to wait until the end of next week to have a cabinet meeting?
Labour is significantly outperforming the ratings it recorded in Scotland throughout 2016 and during thr 2017 election campaign. Moreover , the SNP have in recent years consistently underperformed the polls at real elections. In the context of a Westminster election Labour can realistically expect to poll circa 30% next time - and I will be surprised if the SNP exceed 35%.
The - hopefully - decisive Cabinet meeting at Chequers isn't scheduled until the end of next week. Attempting to speed up negotiations before then is a bit pointless, so a bit cheeky for the EU to ask. They must have known the UK wouldn't have been ready.
But I suppose they wanted to make that obvious because it's absurd for May to ask to accelerate the talks when she isn't ready to do so. If she had the Chequers Cabinet meeting before the EU summit then she could have invited the EU for next week (or this weekend) as a concrete sign of intent.
FFS, this is the most urgent issue the UK has had to deal with since WW2
What like agreeing to not having a border that neither side wants nor will ever build ? Lol.
It can happen only if there is no deal and another legal basis can be found for it.
Nope. It can happen if the either UK or the EU decide they want it. Again the clauses you quote only prevent the act being used to justify a hard border, It does not in any way prevent a hard border if the Government of either side decide they want one.
Read this sentence again. If there is a deal, it cannot be a deal which requires any kind of border.
create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
the issue isn't North South in any case. The BBC lunchtime had an analysis of Irelands trade the bulk of which leaves Dublin for Holyhead or Liverpool 60% goes to the UK and 40% on to the channel ports and tunnel. If there is no deal Ireland is totally fucked.
The - hopefully - decisive Cabinet meeting at Chequers isn't scheduled until the end of next week. Attempting to speed up negotiations before then is a bit pointless, so a bit cheeky for the EU to ask. They must have known the UK wouldn't have been ready.
But I suppose they wanted to make that obvious because it's absurd for May to ask to accelerate the talks when she isn't ready to do so. If she had the Chequers Cabinet meeting before the EU summit then she could have invited the EU for next week (or this weekend) as a concrete sign of intent.
FFS, this is the most urgent issue the UK has had to deal with since WW2
What like agreeing to not having a border that neither side wants nor will ever build ? Lol.
It's all Kabuki - tune out and enjoy the sun.
Neither side wants and no one will ever build, but one side can threaten it and the other will cave instantly.
At Westminster though Corbyn can survive making few further gains from the SNP as the SNP would likely back him in a motion of confidence over the Tories anyway
Like they did in 1979?
In general though, I agree. The SNP will never vote to directly put or sustain the Tories in power. Even so, I don't think that necessarily translates to them automatically backing Labour, if the third option is an election where they expect to make gains and/or advance the cause of independence.
That was in the dying days of a Labour government and the SNP still did not vote for the Tories.
It is highly unlikely a first election followed by a second election would make any difference to the SNP seat total so they would most likely prop up Labour if Corbyn needed their support to become PM but use their support as a bargaining tool
I agree, but my point is that it's not just immediately after the election that Labour would need to keep the SNP on side but at all points during the rest of the parliament too. In a hung parliament, it only takes one issue and one vote to bring down the government.
As you say, an immediate second election would likely bring little benefit. An election after 18 or 24 months though could be a different matter.
All it is saying is that the act cannot be used as an cause for a hard border or reduced cooperation. It in no way says that they cannot happen. It does not ban them at all nor set any conditions on their existence other than the fact that the specific act cannot be used to authorise them.
I would like to say I would have expected better of you but to be honest I don't.
It constrains what can be agreed with the EU. If you want a no deal situation, go for it.
Okay, no deal and the RoI/EU can try and build a fence across Ireland...
You should read the paper I linked. It does not work like that. The Bundesbank actually owe all the Target2 balances to the German commercial banks - see pages 52 and 53 of the paper. And what you are suggesting, which is the compulsory theft of Euros in depositors accounts in Germany and replacement with a less valuable asset, is so obviously illegal that even the ECJ might blush.
Yes, I know that's how Target2 works. That's exactly as I described it in the video. The German banks place their excess deposits at the Bundesbank, which lends them through Target2 to the Banca D'Italia.
Here's where we disagree. In the event of Quitaly, the German bank still has its Euros on deposit with the Bundesbank and the Bundesbank is still owed the Euros by the Banca D'Italia. Quitaly does not absolve Banca D'Italia of its liabilities, it only affects the likelihood they will be paid in full. There are at least two ways around this: one the new Italian government could impose a windfall profit on Italian deposits abroad, or two, the German government could pass legislation (which would make it legal) converting Euros held in Germany by Italians into New Lira. Which would, of course, just be a mirror of the legislation passed in Italy to take them out of the Euro.
Comments
All in all, it's unconscionable for either side. So they should just get on with discussing what the deal should be, rather than playing silly games over Ireland in particular.
Scotland hasn't qualified for any major finals since Holyrood was established. There's clearly a connection.
Marriage should be abolished. The civil partnership debate proves that
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/29/marriage-abolished-civil-partnerships-inequality
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1012372558258343936
In many ways our former state was ideal, with us being full economic members, but with opt outs on things like the Euro and Schengen, but it is much easier being a member and opting out, than a non-member trying to opt in on an ala carte basis. Non-members do not have the same representation or participation.
Meanwhile the clock is ticking.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549
Faster than BT in certain rural areas. Mind you, packet loss can be messy.
(The government has apparently already assured Stonewall that it won't.)
Ferrari always run a bit slow in practice, so I think Vettel might also still have a shot at the front row.
So the EU either agrees such a deal with us, which is what we want, or lets Ireland face the consequences of the alternative.
But if you're thinking about the next 10 or 20 years - will people use your service again, will they recommend it to friends or will they hate you and tell friends to run a mile - you need to put last impressions first.
PS I don't think you have Softbank in Britain, but if you ever get it, don't use it.
Does any digital outfit look 20 years ahead? And would there be any point if they did? Would a strategy born in 1998 be relevent today?
You're doing well if you get a good 12-18 month view.
From my point of view in a largely non religious country it seems a completely unnecessary complication and I don't see why CPs should not now be called marriages. I would be interested in whether Alastair or his partner thinks differently.
Edit, or Sandy, for that matter.
I quite like the idea of converting it to a marriage. My other half, when asked, has given me four answers: "Yes"; "No"; "I'll think about it"; and "That depends how good a party we're going to have".
He's deeply suspicious about the couple behind the Supreme Court case. He has any number of amusing but highly defamatory theories.
The EU could have dealt with Cameron, offered a form of associate membership to those who were not in the Euro that was more relaxed on the "fundamentals". It would have contained the contagion whilst keeping a cash settlement flowing from the UK - and everybody could happily continue to trade. Cameron would have had a meaningful renegotiation and still be a much-lauded PM.
The lack of thought from the very top of the EU on how to deal with the UK has been a massive failing. It continues to be so. It is a mixure of fear, hubris, laziness and contempt. It has served 28 countries very badly. A no-deal Brexit is a real risk as a consequence.
This is, I think, also applicable to Brexit. Maybe Brexit In Name Only is all that some of the Leave voters ever really wanted? A civil partnership with Europe, rather than a marriage.
There's nothing *hard* about doing this stuff right; They know how to do it right when they're signing people up. The hard part is structuring a big organization in a way that doesn't give managers weird incentives and make them do it wrong on purpose.
In general though, I agree. The SNP will never vote to directly put or sustain the Tories in power. Even so, I don't think that necessarily translates to them automatically backing Labour, if the third option is an election where they expect to make gains and/or advance the cause of independence.
Having the two different labels is clearly a thing for some people. I don't see why confirming that is a problem.
2. That said, a deal was never the "logical impossibility" you assert, because the EU is an institution that has survived on a diet of fudge.
It just decided that it only wanted to consume Belgian chocolate flavoured fudge. It didn't fancy shit-flavoured fudge - even though it was going to be paid £40 billion to chow down on it.
I got married in a church even though I am not religious. I did this for my better half and even more for her parents who were much more religious. But, despite thinking it would mean relatively little beyond my word which I had already given, there is something about such a public ceremony in front of friends and family which makes it truly profound. And then the damn photographer bored us all to tears.
It is highly unlikely a first election followed by a second election would make any difference to the SNP seat total so they would most likely prop up Labour if Corbyn needed their support to become PM but use their support as a bargaining tool
1) Take charge of the photographer. It's your day not his/hers, and I can pretty well guarantee you that you aren't going to be looking at the photos more than once in a blue moon, so don't waste endless time setting up pictures you're not going to look at. Your guests will thank you too.
2) Seat people on tables by age.
3) No matter how much the venue tries to persuade you otherwise, you don't need much food later in the evening - everyone will have eaten and drunk plenty by that stage and won't be interested.
I have no tips for after the day itself.
Tories 41%
Labour 38%
LDs 7%
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/1012662133371342850
It will not be the last.
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 41% (+1)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LDEM: 7% (-)
GRN: 4% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (+2)
via @IpsosMORI, 22 - 27 Jun
Chgs. w/ 22 May
Only 30 per cent of the British public have confidence Mrs May will obtain a deal that is good for Britain, which is down from 34 in May and 37 in March.
Two thirds — 67 per cent — do not think she can pull it off, up from 59 per cent in March and 63 per cent in May.
Over four in 10 think she has been “weaker” in the talks than the EU side. Only eight per cent think the Prime Minister has been “stronger”.
Three in 10 think the UK Government will be to blame if talks fail. Just 18 per cent would blame the EU and nearly half would blame both sides equally.
Economic optimism has fallen, with 54 per cent predicting things will get worse in the year ahead, up from 46 per cent in May.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/stop-your-squabbling-or-games-up-cabinet-warned-exminister-speaks-out-as-poll-deals-blow-to-pm-a3875376.html
The UK is quite happy to accept any goods northound with no border, the EU are constrained by the requirement that all their external borders are policed the same way. That’s a much bigger problem for the EU than it is for the UK.
EU: Here is a single market.
Britain: We want a financial passport
EU: Here is a financial passport
Britain: We want expansion to the east
EU: Here is expansion to the east. Are you sure you want people from these countries to be able to move to your country straight away?
Britain: Totally, our economy is [rocket emoji] and we need the guys
...
Britain: You sneakily changed the vision!
In my view, it's more important to spend money on the food than the alcohol (true of all functions, really). There's nothing worse than a function where everyone is getting pissed, but there's little to eat.
(a) diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted
Apparently it leads to performance issues later on that night, and that’s not an auspicious way to start a marriage.
So my friends tell me, as a good Muslim boy I didn’t drink any champagne on my wedding day.
Yes? Good.
Last night I went to an awards ceremony to celebrate my nomination (by Global Investigations Review) as one of 100 remarkable women in investigations worldwide for 2018. (The last one was in 2015 so I shall live off this for the next 3 years.). Much food and wine was consumed. It was lovely to see so many women in this space and, despite having spent the last few weeks in the Lake District consuming far too much nice food, I didn't look too awful in the photos.
I am celebrating today by doing some serious gardening which, in this heat, is remarkable in itself. I will update you on how effective a cure for a hangover it is later.......
And twats like you, Mr Osborne, stirring s**t among the government you were part of only a couple of years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5900811/Firefighters-desperately-battle-blaze-12th-floor-flat-tower-block-East-London.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/06/29/warburtons-cuts-production-crumpets-co2-shortage-bites/
create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
Reason : ROI will never build a border.
The - hopefully - decisive Cabinet meeting at Chequers isn't scheduled until the end of next week. Attempting to speed up negotiations before then is a bit pointless, so a bit cheeky for the EU to ask. They must have known the UK wouldn't have been ready.
But I suppose they wanted to make that obvious because it's absurd for May to ask to accelerate the talks when she isn't ready to do so. If she had the Chequers Cabinet meeting before the EU summit then she could have invited the EU for next week (or this weekend) as a concrete sign of intent.
The full clause states:
"Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which—
(a)
diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or
(b)
create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU."
See that first sentence? The one you accidently on purpose missed out?
"Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which.."
All it is saying is that the act cannot be used as a cause for a hard border or reduced cooperation. It in no way says that they cannot happen. It does not ban them at all nor set any conditions on their existence other than the fact that the specific act cannot be used to authorise them.
I would like to say I would have expected better of you but to be honest I don't.
It's all Kabuki - tune out and enjoy the sun.
I'll leave you to figure out which side is which.
As you say, an immediate second election would likely bring little benefit. An election after 18 or 24 months though could be a different matter.
Don't get your sausage charred, old bean .
Here's where we disagree. In the event of Quitaly, the German bank still has its Euros on deposit with the Bundesbank and the Bundesbank is still owed the Euros by the Banca D'Italia. Quitaly does not absolve Banca D'Italia of its liabilities, it only affects the likelihood they will be paid in full. There are at least two ways around this: one the new Italian government could impose a windfall profit on Italian deposits abroad, or two, the German government could pass legislation (which would make it legal) converting Euros held in Germany by Italians into New Lira. Which would, of course, just be a mirror of the legislation passed in Italy to take them out of the Euro.