The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
October seems the likely time to move against May, but depending on what the EU says it could precipitate Sturgeon setting a time table for SindyRef2 electric boogaloo so events could over take them.
It will never be the right time to move against May.
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
If I were a Tory MP I'd probably vote against this shit show of a white paper.
To what end?
To give Leavers what they want, a no deal Brexit.
This way they will own it, enough of them seem to prefer a no deal Brexit.
It will still be an improper Brexit as it will be a disaster and true Brexit can only be puppies and flowers.
Still the strawberry surveyors, bedroom dwellers, retired (although Airbus seems to have been an awakening), expats and planning to be expats will be happy.
I like a good historical reference, but it seems silly to pick this one which only applied to John's continental possessions (so not England) rather than the 1213 submission by John to the Pope.
If I were a Tory MP I'd probably vote against this shit show of a white paper.
To what end?
To give Leavers what they want, a no deal Brexit.
This way they will own it, enough of them seem to prefer a no deal Brexit.
It will still be an improper Brexit as it will be a disaster and true Brexit can only be puppies and flowers.
Still the strawberry surveyors, bedroom dwellers, retired (although Airbus seems to have been an awakening), expats and planning to be expats will be happy.
Hard Brexit will give us proper austerity and force us to live within our means, I think that's a good thing.
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
I don't disagree but the price of keeping our word may just be a lot higher if we don't have the US backing us than it was before.
And to be frank, unless France and the UK give their words and mean it, the rest are probably not going to swing it.
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
I don't disagree but the price of keeping our word may just be a lot higher if we don't have the US backing us than it was before.
And to be frank, unless France and the UK give their words and mean it, the rest are probably not going to swing it.
Being willing to defend the Baltic States does not cost us (or other NATO States) very much. The modern Russian Army is a shadow of the Red Army of 1945.
In general I'd say that not defending an ally increases the price we have to pay (in blood and money) to defend an ally in the future.
Whatever you think of the politics, I think Raab will be an asset to the govt. fronting this. Decent leaver credentials, sounds reasonable and comfortable with the brief, doesn't rise to bait, gives questions which demand a one-word answer a one-word answer. For all DD's combative attractiveness to the militant wing of the Brexiteers, this is a much stronger appointment for selling a position to the centre ground.
From another PB, well they've ruined Livin' La Vida Loca.
Skip this post if you're eating or drinking, particularly Lucozade.
>> Drippy Martin << Silence: no longer golden
The National Enquirer has a pretty risqué quote from Ricky Martin this week: "I love giving the golden shower. I've done it before in the shower. It's like so sexy, you know, the temperature of your body and the shower water is very different."
When Ricky first talked about his enjoyment of golden showers a few years back, to music magazine Blender, he got in all sorts of trouble with conservative America. Many media outlets and rent-a-gob politicians demanded he close down his children's charity as he must be an absolute perv.
So what's changed? What on earth could have made a Republican-supporting, Trump-loving magazine like the National Enquirer want to normalise piss-play in the eyes of their readers? We can't think...
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
Have the Poles forgiven us yet?
Or Ukraine. The west ignoring the Budapest Memorandum has utterly screwed Ukraine and made Europe far less stable. I'd also argue that the world is less stable, as one of the few successful nuclear disarmament deals is shown to be toothless.
Why would any state get rid of nukes now, if guarantees of their protection in return are to be disregarded? (and this is particularly relevant for NK).
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
I don't disagree but the price of keeping our word may just be a lot higher if we don't have the US backing us than it was before.
And to be frank, unless France and the UK give their words and mean it, the rest are probably not going to swing it.
This is quite a change for me, but I think we should plan to spend 4% of GDP on the armed forces as soon as that level of spending can be ramped up without it being entirely wasted. And we should certainly be encouraging the French to do likewise.
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
That's a very slippery slope, not least because where do you draw a line on what constitutes a democracy? Does Turkey count, for example? Does Switzerland, which would give no mutual guarantee?
While I agree that democracies have a common interest in protecting their values, we also have to recognise that other geostrategic considerations matter at least as much.
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
Have the Poles forgiven us yet?
Or Ukraine. The west ignoring the Budapest Memorandum has utterly screwed Ukraine and made Europe far less stable. I'd also argue that the world is less stable, as one of the few successful nuclear disarmament deals is shown to be toothless.
Why would any state get rid of nukes now, if guarantees of their protection in return are to be disregarded? (and this is particularly relevant for NK).
Yes, that is a stain on Britain's reputation, but what is particularly galling is that it is one that has gone almost entirely unnoticed (except in the Kremlin, etc). British MPs seem to spend more time campaigning on weeds and dog shit than on the Budapest Memorandum.
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
I don't disagree but the price of keeping our word may just be a lot higher if we don't have the US backing us than it was before.
And to be frank, unless France and the UK give their words and mean it, the rest are probably not going to swing it.
This is quite a change for me, but I think we should plan to spend 4% of GDP on the armed forces as soon as that level of spending can be ramped up without it being entirely wasted. And we should certainly be encouraging the French to do likewise.
Yes, I think that is a logical consequence of what Trump is doing and what the US is likely to do in the future. That expenditure also needs to be focussed on autonomous forces which can operate without US support should that prove necessary rather than perceived "NATO" needs.
If I were a Tory MP I'd probably vote against this shit show of a white paper.
It's impressive the way May has worked around the clock to piece together an intricate compromise that manages to please absolutely nobody.
Indeed, especially as I've been one of Mrs May's staunchest supporters.
Well, that's the nature of compromises, particularly when the opposing positions are so far apart.
This is a good piece from Henry Newman, and the conclusion is, I think, correct. The EU haven't really negotiated in very good faith so far (which is of course the design and purpose of Article 50). That will have to change.
I hope this proposal is taken seriously by European member states and the EU itself. I believe it should provide the basis for a future partnership. But if it’s judged insufficient, then I fear the British people will think that the UK has already made a fair and reasonable offer. They would be very wary of further compromise , and so regrettably our relations will probably end up being looser, with concomitant effects on both sides of the Channel for economic growth and security cooperation in the future.
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
I don't disagree but the price of keeping our word may just be a lot higher if we don't have the US backing us than it was before.
And to be frank, unless France and the UK give their words and mean it, the rest are probably not going to swing it.
Being willing to defend the Baltic States does not cost us (or other NATO States) very much. The modern Russian Army is a shadow of the Red Army of 1945.
In general I'd say that not defending an ally increases the price we have to pay (in blood and money) to defend an ally in the future.
I think that the risk is that we will see a repeat of Ukraine with the largish Russian minorities "spontaneously" rebelling in a remarkably organised and well equipped way, almost as if they were trained soldiers. Will we send our soldiers into that?
Whatever you think of the politics, I think Raab will be an asset to the govt. fronting this. Decent leaver credentials, sounds reasonable and comfortable with the brief, doesn't rise to bait, gives questions which demand a one-word answer a one-word answer. For all DD's combative attractiveness to the militant wing of the Brexiteers, this is a much stronger appointment for selling a position to the centre ground.
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
I don't disagree but the price of keeping our word may just be a lot higher if we don't have the US backing us than it was before.
And to be frank, unless France and the UK give their words and mean it, the rest are probably not going to swing it.
Being willing to defend the Baltic States does not cost us (or other NATO States) very much. The modern Russian Army is a shadow of the Red Army of 1945.
In general I'd say that not defending an ally increases the price we have to pay (in blood and money) to defend an ally in the future.
I think that the risk is that we will see a repeat of Ukraine with the largish Russian minorities "spontaneously" rebelling in a remarkably organised and well equipped way, almost as if they were trained soldiers. Will we send our soldiers into that?
If the Conservatives are going to have a vote of no confidence, could they do so today or wait 10 days? I'm away on holiday next week and my other half is not going to be understanding of interrupting my holiday for betting purposes.
If the Conservatives are going to have a vote of no confidence, could they do so today or wait 10 days? I'm away on holiday next week and my other half is not going to be understanding of interrupting my holiday for betting purposes.
You'd think him indoors would be used to your gambling addiction and related degeneracy by now.
If I were a Tory MP I'd probably vote against this shit show of a white paper.
To what end?
To give Leavers what they want, a no deal Brexit.
This way they will own it, enough of them seem to prefer a no deal Brexit.
Judging by YouGov,. a surprisingly large number of Remainers (27%) do favour a No Deal Brexit, presumably for that reason.
Or perhaps it is because the only real options are.... IN or OUT. If we are not staying IN then it has to be OUT. Freedom of Movement and the NI border make halfway solutions too difficult to resolve in the time we have left.
That's more like it. despite our government finding him guilty 'without reasonable doubt' of having sent poison and a poisoner to the sleepy village of Salsbury to kill a British citizen and anyone else who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time Trump is still giving Putin a run for his money on the unpopularity list.
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
That's a very slippery slope, not least because where do you draw a line on what constitutes a democracy? Does Turkey count, for example? Does Switzerland, which would give no mutual guarantee?
While I agree that democracies have a common interest in protecting their values, we also have to recognise that other geostrategic considerations matter at least as much.
I think it's good as a basic principle. I accept we have to be constrained of course by what is possible. Switzerland definitely is a democracy and yes we should come to their aid even if they wouldn't necessarily be able or willing to come to ours. Turkey more dubious, if it keeps going the way it is, then I would say not a democracy.
When people say geostrategic considerations or things like that I always get a bit suspicious because I think those phrases can hide a multitude of things. You could argue the Suez canal is geostrategically important to the UK, but I wouldn't go to war over it.
If the Conservatives are going to have a vote of no confidence, could they do so today or wait 10 days? I'm away on holiday next week and my other half is not going to be understanding of interrupting my holiday for betting purposes.
You'd think him indoors would be used to your gambling addiction and related degeneracy by now.
He is. But he's an Ulsterman which means that familiarity does not engender forbearance. Past episodes are remembered for centuries (NB today's date).
We have a lot of rooks outside our new house. My niece, who is expert in corvids, tells us that rooks remember who you are, bear grudges if they consider you've done them wrong and pass those grudges down through the generations. This could be an interesting battle of wills.
If I were a Tory MP I'd probably vote against this shit show of a white paper.
It's impressive the way May has worked around the clock to piece together an intricate compromise that manages to please absolutely nobody.
Indeed, especially as I've been one of Mrs May's staunchest supporters.
Well, that's the nature of compromises, particularly when the opposing positions are so far apart.
This is a good piece from Henry Newman, and the conclusion is, I think, correct. The EU haven't really negotiated in very good faith so far (which is of course the design and purpose of Article 50). That will have to change.
I hope this proposal is taken seriously by European member states and the EU itself. I believe it should provide the basis for a future partnership. But if it’s judged insufficient, then I fear the British people will think that the UK has already made a fair and reasonable offer. They would be very wary of further compromise , and so regrettably our relations will probably end up being looser, with concomitant effects on both sides of the Channel for economic growth and security cooperation in the future.
If I were a Tory MP I'd probably vote against this shit show of a white paper.
To what end?
To give Leavers what they want, a no deal Brexit.
This way they will own it, enough of them seem to prefer a no deal Brexit.
It will still be an improper Brexit as it will be a disaster and true Brexit can only be puppies and flowers.
Still the strawberry surveyors, bedroom dwellers, retired (although Airbus seems to have been an awakening), expats and planning to be expats will be happy.
Hard Brexit will give us proper austerity and force us to live within our means, I think that's a good thing.
My goodness. I agree with you on something for once :-)
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
Yes... although I'm mindful that a related logic got the Americans into all sorts of trouble in Vietnam etc. If we gave our word stupidly (or if a previous leader did so), I don't know that we should go to crazy lengths trying to keep it.
My observations so far - just read down to the Framework for mobility. Note that in financial services the UK is saying, effectively, you need us as much as if not more than we need you. We shall see how that is received.
These are all quotes from the document which I believe are noteworthy.
1. Taken together, such a partnership would see the UK and the EU meet their commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland through the overall future relationship
2. The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook for goods including agri-food, with the UK making an upfront choice to commit by treaty to ongoing harmonisation with EU rules on goods, covering only those necessary to provide for frictionless trade at the border.
3. As if in a combined customs territory with the EU, the UK would apply the EU’s tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the EU.
4. However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK.
5. The UK would maintain a common rulebook with the EU, including the Union Customs Code and rules related to safety and security, and would apply and interpret those rules consistently with the EU.
6. The UK would also seek participation – as an active participant, albeit without voting rights – in EU technical committees that have a role in designing and implementing rules that form part of the common rulebook.
7. The adoption of a common rulebook means that the British Standards Institution (BSI) would retain its ability to apply the “single standard model” – so that where a voluntary European standard is used to support EU rules, the BSI could not put forward any competing national standards.
8. In line with the UK’s objective of ensuring that products only go through one approval mechanism to 22 The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union access both markets, the UK is seeking participation in these EU agencies [The European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)], as an active participant, albeit without voting rights, which would involve making an appropriate financial contribution.
9. the UK is seeking access to the EU’s communications systems, such as the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), Rapid Alert System for Serious Risk (Rapex), and the Information and Communication System for Market Surveillance (ICSMS).
10. [On financial services] the UK-EU arrangement should include common objectives, such as maintaining economic relations of broad scope, preserving regulatory compatibility, and supporting collaboration – bilaterally and in multilateral fora – to manage shared interests such as financial stability and the prevention of regulatory arbitrage
The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).
Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.
If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".
It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime. We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.
Have the Poles forgiven us yet?
Or Ukraine. The west ignoring the Budapest Memorandum has utterly screwed Ukraine and made Europe far less stable. I'd also argue that the world is less stable, as one of the few successful nuclear disarmament deals is shown to be toothless.
Why would any state get rid of nukes now, if guarantees of their protection in return are to be disregarded? (and this is particularly relevant for NK).
Yes, that is a stain on Britain's reputation, but what is particularly galling is that it is one that has gone almost entirely unnoticed (except in the Kremlin, etc). British MPs seem to spend more time campaigning on weeds and dog shit than on the Budapest Memorandum.
That's what gets them elected (and because that's what gets them elected, that also influences the type of people who are attracted to standing for parliament).
If the Conservatives are going to have a vote of no confidence, could they do so today or wait 10 days? I'm away on holiday next week and my other half is not going to be understanding of interrupting my holiday for betting purposes.
You'd think him indoors would be used to your gambling addiction and related degeneracy by now.
He is. But he's an Ulsterman which means that familiarity does not engender forbearance. Past episodes are remembered for centuries (NB today's date).
We have a lot of rooks outside our new house. My niece, who is expert in corvids, tells us that rooks remember who you are, bear grudges if they consider you've done them wrong and pass those grudges down through the generations. This could be an interesting battle of wills.
He might want to consider falconry. "H is for Hawk" gives an interesting account.
If the Conservatives are going to have a vote of no confidence, could they do so today or wait 10 days? I'm away on holiday next week and my other half is not going to be understanding of interrupting my holiday for betting purposes.
You'd think him indoors would be used to your gambling addiction and related degeneracy by now.
He is. But he's an Ulsterman which means that familiarity does not engender forbearance. Past episodes are remembered for centuries (NB today's date).
We have a lot of rooks outside our new house. My niece, who is expert in corvids, tells us that rooks remember who you are, bear grudges if they consider you've done them wrong and pass those grudges down through the generations. This could be an interesting battle of wills.
My eldest Yorkiepoo is an avid hunter, though primarily squirrels in these parts. She made the mistake of killing a crow at our local park. She was then mobbed by other crows, and over the next few weeks was mobbed each time we took a stroll. That the crows can distinguish between her and her kennelmate genuinely impresses me.
Same thing will probably happen to QT - pick a female presenter, pay the same rate as the previous bloke as they have to, then work out the programme is a bit rubbish and not worth the money.
If the Conservatives are going to have a vote of no confidence, could they do so today or wait 10 days? I'm away on holiday next week and my other half is not going to be understanding of interrupting my holiday for betting purposes.
You'd think him indoors would be used to your gambling addiction and related degeneracy by now.
He is. But he's an Ulsterman which means that familiarity does not engender forbearance. Past episodes are remembered for centuries (NB today's date).
We have a lot of rooks outside our new house. My niece, who is expert in corvids, tells us that rooks remember who you are, bear grudges if they consider you've done them wrong and pass those grudges down through the generations. This could be an interesting battle of wills.
My observations so far - just read down to the Framework for mobility. Note that in financial services the UK is saying, effectively, you need us as much as if not more than we need you. We shall see how that is received.
These are all quotes from the document which I believe are noteworthy.
... Long list of cherry picks snipped...
I know someone on here was keeping track of fresh fruit at the supermarket, but it seems No 10 loves cherries and picking them.
Perhaps a solution for the strawberry harvest beckons and we can convert a bunch of useless politicans to productive members of society and keep Tescos and Sainbury stocked with fruit.
England looking quite seriously short at the moment. Bit to go of course but with 4 wickets down a hell of a lot depends on these 2.
Stokes playing a match losing innings that Boycott (get well soon) would be proud of.
I can understand he was concerned that wickets were falling all around him but it is seriously disappointing that he has not picked up his rate. It must be putting a lot of pressure on Buttler.
England looking quite seriously short at the moment. Bit to go of course but with 4 wickets down a hell of a lot depends on these 2.
Stokes playing a match losing innings that Boycott (get well soon) would be proud of.
I can understand he was concerned that wickets were falling all around him but it is seriously disappointing that he has not picked up his rate. It must be putting a lot of pressure on Buttler.
Weird that he of all players has reverted to the old fallacy that you need to protect wickets and make and bat the overs. 300 is the new 210. You have far more chance of winning just keeping going and risking a bad defeat than trying to eek up to a score which would be respectable 5 years ago but is now a very easy chase.
If I were a Tory MP I'd probably vote against this shit show of a white paper.
To what end?
To give Leavers what they want, a no deal Brexit.
This way they will own it, enough of them seem to prefer a no deal Brexit.
Judging by YouGov,. a surprisingly large number of Remainers (27%) do favour a No Deal Brexit, presumably for that reason.
Or perhaps it is because the only real options are.... IN or OUT. If we are not staying IN then it has to be OUT. Freedom of Movement and the NI border make halfway solutions too difficult to resolve in the time we have left.
My observations so far - just read down to the Framework for mobility. Note that in financial services the UK is saying, effectively, you need us as much as if not more than we need you. We shall see how that is received.
These are all quotes from the document which I believe are noteworthy.
... Long list of cherry picks snipped...
I know someone on here was keeping track of fresh fruit at the supermarket, but it seems No 10 loves cherries and picking them.
Perhaps a solution for the strawberry harvest beckons and we can convert a bunch of useless politicans to productive members of society and keep Tescos and Sainbury stocked with fruit.
Win win win ...
I don't think it would work if any of the MPs had any kind of foreign background as I believe that would invalidate the entire strawberry exercise.
My observations so far - just read down to the Framework for mobility. Note that in financial services the UK is saying, effectively, you need us as much as if not more than we need you. We shall see how that is received.
These are all quotes from the document which I believe are noteworthy.
... Long list of cherry picks snipped...
I know someone on here was keeping track of fresh fruit at the supermarket, but it seems No 10 loves cherries and picking them.
Perhaps a solution for the strawberry harvest beckons and we can convert a bunch of useless politicans to productive members of society and keep Tescos and Sainbury stocked with fruit.
Win win win ...
I don't think it would work if any of the MPs had any kind of foreign background as I believe that would invalidate the entire strawberry exercise.
They could work illegally as Forrin Nashinoles - apparently that is the done thing
If the Conservatives are going to have a vote of no confidence, could they do so today or wait 10 days? I'm away on holiday next week and my other half is not going to be understanding of interrupting my holiday for betting purposes.
You'd think him indoors would be used to your gambling addiction and related degeneracy by now.
He is. But he's an Ulsterman which means that familiarity does not engender forbearance. Past episodes are remembered for centuries (NB today's date).
We have a lot of rooks outside our new house. My niece, who is expert in corvids, tells us that rooks remember who you are, bear grudges if they consider you've done them wrong and pass those grudges down through the generations. This could be an interesting battle of wills.
If I were a Tory MP I'd probably vote against this shit show of a white paper.
To what end?
To give Leavers what they want, a no deal Brexit.
This way they will own it, enough of them seem to prefer a no deal Brexit.
Judging by YouGov,. a surprisingly large number of Remainers (27%) do favour a No Deal Brexit, presumably for that reason.
Or perhaps it is because the only real options are.... IN or OUT. If we are not staying IN then it has to be OUT. Freedom of Movement and the NI border make halfway solutions too difficult to resolve in the time we have left.
There are many variants of both In and Out.
Yes...
IN, really IN, halfheartedly IN, fanatically IN
OUT, really OUT, pull up the drawbridge OUT...
but in-out in-out do the hokey-cokey is not on offer
My observations so far - just read down to the Framework for mobility. Note that in financial services the UK is saying, effectively, you need us as much as if not more than we need you. We shall see how that is received.
These are all quotes from the document which I believe are noteworthy.
... Long list of cherry picks snipped...
I know someone on here was keeping track of fresh fruit at the supermarket, but it seems No 10 loves cherries and picking them.
Perhaps a solution for the strawberry harvest beckons and we can convert a bunch of useless politicans to productive members of society and keep Tescos and Sainbury stocked with fruit.
Win win win ...
Right now I think the only use for our political class is in Soylent Green.
If the Conservatives are going to have a vote of no confidence, could they do so today or wait 10 days? I'm away on holiday next week and my other half is not going to be understanding of interrupting my holiday for betting purposes.
You'd think him indoors would be used to your gambling addiction and related degeneracy by now.
He is. But he's an Ulsterman which means that familiarity does not engender forbearance. Past episodes are remembered for centuries (NB today's date).
We have a lot of rooks outside our new house. My niece, who is expert in corvids, tells us that rooks remember who you are, bear grudges if they consider you've done them wrong and pass those grudges down through the generations. This could be an interesting battle of wills.
Are rooks from Ulster too?
It feels like it.
Be glad you never dealt with Ulster rooks. There was a flock of them outside the church I was forced to go to when a child. They never shut up, made raucous noises non stop and pooped on anyone passing by.
My observations so far - just read down to the Framework for mobility. Note that in financial services the UK is saying, effectively, you need us as much as if not more than we need you. We shall see how that is received.
These are all quotes from the document which I believe are noteworthy.
... Long list of cherry picks snipped...
I know someone on here was keeping track of fresh fruit at the supermarket, but it seems No 10 loves cherries and picking them.
Perhaps a solution for the strawberry harvest beckons and we can convert a bunch of useless politicans to productive members of society and keep Tescos and Sainbury stocked with fruit.
Win win win ...
Right now I think the only use for our political class is in Soylent Green.
Are you seriously advocating chowing down on Michael Gove.
My observations so far - just read down to the Framework for mobility. Note that in financial services the UK is saying, effectively, you need us as much as if not more than we need you. We shall see how that is received.
These are all quotes from the document which I believe are noteworthy.
... Long list of cherry picks snipped...
I know someone on here was keeping track of fresh fruit at the supermarket, but it seems No 10 loves cherries and picking them.
Perhaps a solution for the strawberry harvest beckons and we can convert a bunch of useless politicans to productive members of society and keep Tescos and Sainbury stocked with fruit.
Win win win ...
Right now I think the only use for our political class is in Soylent Green.
If I were a Tory MP I'd probably vote against this shit show of a white paper.
To what end?
To give Leavers what they want, a no deal Brexit.
This way they will own it, enough of them seem to prefer a no deal Brexit.
Judging by YouGov,. a surprisingly large number of Remainers (27%) do favour a No Deal Brexit, presumably for that reason.
Or perhaps it is because the only real options are.... IN or OUT. If we are not staying IN then it has to be OUT. Freedom of Movement and the NI border make halfway solutions too difficult to resolve in the time we have left.
There are many variants of both In and Out.
There are, but for nearly all of them there needed to be politic so will and a degree of planning. The clock is running down, so only BRINO an d car crash Brexit can be done in time.
If the Conservatives are going to have a vote of no confidence, could they do so today or wait 10 days? I'm away on holiday next week and my other half is not going to be understanding of interrupting my holiday for betting purposes.
You'd think him indoors would be used to your gambling addiction and related degeneracy by now.
He is. But he's an Ulsterman which means that familiarity does not engender forbearance. Past episodes are remembered for centuries (NB today's date).
We have a lot of rooks outside our new house. My niece, who is expert in corvids, tells us that rooks remember who you are, bear grudges if they consider you've done them wrong and pass those grudges down through the generations. This could be an interesting battle of wills.
Are rooks from Ulster too?
It feels like it.
The magpies let us know full well their view on our cats, our tabby cat Tess in particular.
Procter & Gamble (PG +0.2%) says a "vast majority" of its products in Canada will be impacted by tariffs after the Canadian government decided not to issue an exemption.
P&G's sales in Canada are likely to be hurt as part of the nation's retaliation for steel and aluminum tariffs fired off by the U.S. this month.
My observations so far - just read down to the Framework for mobility. Note that in financial services the UK is saying, effectively, you need us as much as if not more than we need you. We shall see how that is received.
These are all quotes from the document which I believe are noteworthy.
... Long list of cherry picks snipped...
I know someone on here was keeping track of fresh fruit at the supermarket, but it seems No 10 loves cherries and picking them.
Perhaps a solution for the strawberry harvest beckons and we can convert a bunch of useless politicans to productive members of society and keep Tescos and Sainbury stocked with fruit.
Win win win ...
Right now I think the only use for our political class is in Soylent Green.
Are you seriously advocating chowing down on Michael Gove.
Comments
We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.
It will never be the right time to move against May.
This way they will own it, enough of them seem to prefer a no deal Brexit.
I've never seen a cable-stayed or suspension bridge demolished before, yet alone an unfinished one:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-latin-america-44802768/colombia-s-tragedy-road-bridge-demolished
OTOH did the tory Manifesto not promise a British bill of rights instead? It would be very good if that stupid idea has been dropped.
Still the strawberry surveyors, bedroom dwellers, retired (although Airbus seems to have been an awakening), expats and planning to be expats will be happy.
And to be frank, unless France and the UK give their words and mean it, the rest are probably not going to swing it.
In general I'd say that not defending an ally increases the price we have to pay (in blood and money) to defend an ally in the future.
Number 10 now fears the number of letters of no confidence in Theresa May is close to reaching the 48 threshold
https://order-order.com/2018/07/12/whips-ask-mps-to-withdraw-letters-as-no-10-fear-theyre-approaching-48/
Skip this post if you're eating or drinking, particularly Lucozade.
>> Drippy Martin <<
Silence: no longer golden
The National Enquirer has a pretty risqué quote from Ricky Martin this week: "I love giving the golden shower. I've done it before in the shower. It's like so sexy, you know, the temperature of your body and the shower water is very different."
When Ricky first talked about his enjoyment of golden showers a few years back, to music magazine Blender, he got in all sorts of trouble with conservative America. Many media outlets and rent-a-gob politicians demanded he close down his children's charity as he must be an absolute perv.
So what's changed? What on earth could have made a Republican-supporting, Trump-loving magazine like the National Enquirer want to normalise piss-play in the eyes of their readers? We can't think...
Why would any state get rid of nukes now, if guarantees of their protection in return are to be disregarded? (and this is particularly relevant for NK).
While I agree that democracies have a common interest in protecting their values, we also have to recognise that other geostrategic considerations matter at least as much.
This is a good piece from Henry Newman, and the conclusion is, I think, correct. The EU haven't really negotiated in very good faith so far (which is of course the design and purpose of Article 50). That will have to change.
I hope this proposal is taken seriously by European member states and the EU itself. I believe it should provide the basis for a future partnership. But if it’s judged insufficient, then I fear the British people will think that the UK has already made a fair and reasonable offer. They would be very wary of further compromise , and so regrettably our relations will probably end up being looser, with concomitant effects on both sides of the Channel for economic growth and security cooperation in the future.
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1017396814922833920
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-44806039
Nothing? Really?
When people say geostrategic considerations or things like that I always get a bit suspicious because I think those phrases can hide a multitude of things. You could argue the Suez canal is geostrategically important to the UK, but I wouldn't go to war over it.
We have a lot of rooks outside our new house. My niece, who is expert in corvids, tells us that rooks remember who you are, bear grudges if they consider you've done them wrong and pass those grudges down through the generations. This could be an interesting battle of wills.
What's happened is that May has signalled to the EU27 she's now willing to betray her party and Leave in order to get that fudge through.
The EU27 haven't been negotiating in good faith, because until now they didn't have an opening offer they negotiate with.
Now we know May is a BRINO and is willing to betray her party for it, we finally have something we can negotiate with.
These are all quotes from the document which I believe are noteworthy.
1. Taken together, such a partnership would see the UK and the EU meet their commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland through the overall future relationship
2. The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook for goods including agri-food, with the UK making an upfront choice to commit by treaty to ongoing harmonisation with EU rules on goods, covering only those necessary to provide for frictionless trade at the border.
3. As if in a combined customs territory with the EU, the UK would apply the EU’s tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the EU.
4. However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK.
5. The UK would maintain a common rulebook with the EU, including the Union Customs Code and rules related to safety and security, and would apply and interpret those rules consistently with the EU.
6. The UK would also seek participation – as an active participant, albeit without voting rights – in EU technical committees that have a role in designing and implementing rules that form part of the common rulebook.
7. The adoption of a common rulebook means that the British Standards Institution (BSI) would retain its ability to apply the “single standard model” – so that where a voluntary European standard is used to support EU rules, the BSI could not put forward any competing national standards.
8. In line with the UK’s objective of ensuring that products only go through one approval mechanism to 22 The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union access both markets, the UK is seeking participation in these EU agencies [The European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)], as an active participant, albeit without voting rights, which would involve making an appropriate financial contribution.
9. the UK is seeking access to the EU’s communications systems, such as the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), Rapid Alert System for Serious Risk (Rapex), and the Information and Communication System for Market Surveillance (ICSMS).
10. [On financial services] the UK-EU arrangement should include common objectives, such as maintaining economic relations of broad scope, preserving regulatory compatibility, and supporting collaboration – bilaterally and in multilateral fora – to manage shared interests such as financial stability and the prevention of regulatory arbitrage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2018/bbc-announces-changes-to-political-programming
#LazyScottishStereotyping
Perhaps a solution for the strawberry harvest beckons and we can convert a bunch of useless politicans to productive members of society and keep Tescos and Sainbury stocked with fruit.
Win win win ...
IN, really IN, halfheartedly IN, fanatically IN
OUT, really OUT, pull up the drawbridge OUT...
but in-out in-out do the hokey-cokey is not on offer
No...sorry.. that was the local politicians....
Procter & Gamble (PG +0.2%) says a "vast majority" of its products in Canada will be impacted by tariffs after the Canadian government decided not to issue an exemption.
P&G's sales in Canada are likely to be hurt as part of the nation's retaliation for steel and aluminum tariffs fired off by the U.S. this month.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3369660-procter-and-gamble-faces-tariff-headache-canada
Good afternoon, everyone.