Wikipedia suggests; "The Irish Air Corps lacks a dedicated air intercept capability, and previous air incursions have seen the Royal Air Force respond to and escort unwelcome aircraft out of Irish controlled airspace."
I suspect these ideas won't make it to the Taoiseach's top ideas list.
Are you suggesting that airlines would routinely violate a sovereign nation’s airspace?
Without a method of enforcing it, I’d suggest they aren’t sovereign.
Many smaller countries don't have airforces capable of shooting down airliners, so I'm not sure that's fair. (Iceland, for example, doesn't have a single fighter plane.)
Completely off topic but at the cricket yesterday there was an extremely loud pop.
A large Indian man said, “don’t worry lads, we’re Indians.”
Indians, Brits and all found this very funny. It was racist, I suppose, but it highlighted where we have a problem. And it is not with Indian immigrants. They love their cricket, they love their beer and they know how to have a good time in the same way we do, even if they fail the Tebbit test spectacularly.
About the only difference I noted was by the time Root got his 100 they had all left. They don’t like to watch their team lose. But not for the first time I greatly enjoyed their company.
Why would you think it racist?
Because he was stereotyping Pakistanis as people who blow things up.
Was he? Or was he stereotyping Muslims? Who are not a race, of course.
I think that there was a bit of a clue in the reference to Indians. I would agree with other comments that Indians are pretty recist about their sub continental neighbours and they are not shy about it either.
Totally off topic, but the English transfer window closes in just over 3 weeks.
Anyone amazed that apart from Liverpool there's not much transfer business going on?
It might be a hectic few weeks.
Who will be the new Karel Poborsky?
Are Liverpool going to buy another Benteke, Borini, Carroll. Keane, Konchesky. Gives us all a good laugh.
Or another Torres, Suarez, Coutinho or Salah.
It always makes me laugh when opponents of Liverpool mention Carroll. Carroll was part of an excellent set of deals. He was purchased along with a rather unheard of player funded by the sale to Chelsea of Torres who was past his peak. That certain other player was Suarez.
Selling Torres to buy Carroll and Suarez was excellent transfer work.
Andy Carroll scored a last minute winner in an FA Cup semi final against Everton which made that £35 million value for money.
Apparently the BBC idiotic decision not just to apologise to Cliff Richard is going to cost £5 million in legal fees.
That was the thing I found most remarkable about the whole case. Did the senior management really think this was ok? The case was screaming out for settlement and a sensible tender.
The case has been handled appallingly after the BBC has behaved appallingly. Heads should roll. But on the point of law, the BBC is right to press. There is public interest in the fact that a public figure is under investigation in relation to a possible criminal offence.
To take an unrelated example, Vote Leave have just been referred to the police by the Electoral Commission. If this were hypothetically to widen to include, say, Michael Gove, do we really want the law to prevent that fact from being reported?
No I wouldn’t. But there is a big difference between reporting a search and having a helicopter hanging over the house. That was a clear and serious breach of privacy. It is not the report, it is the way it was done.
Interested to hear the views of PB’s legal eagles on the damages calculation. £210k was an order of magnitude lower than I expected, given the victim’s reputation, the circumstances and the unwillingness to apologise.
I hate to argue alongside the Brexiteers, but I think the argument about grounding flights does have a problem. Isn't the Shanwick Oceanic flight information region (EGGX) handled jointly between Prestwick (Scotland) and Shannon (Ireland)? Adding that to the Scottish region (EGPX, handled by Prestwick in Scotland) and the London region (EGTT, handled by Swanwick in England), and the combination adds up to a rather large lump of sky. It's difficult to see how grounding UK flights doesn't also ground flights to Northern Europe from North America and vice-versa.
Totally off topic, but the English transfer window closes in just over 3 weeks.
Anyone amazed that apart from Liverpool there's not much transfer business going on?
It might be a hectic few weeks.
Who will be the new Karel Poborsky?
Are Liverpool going to buy another Benteke, Borini, Carroll. Keane, Konchesky. Gives us all a good laugh.
Or another Torres, Suarez, Coutinho or Salah.
It always makes me laugh when opponents of Liverpool mention Carroll. Carroll was part of an excellent set of deals. He was purchased along with a rather unheard of player funded by the sale to Chelsea of Torres who was past his peak. That certain other player was Suarez.
Selling Torres to buy Carroll and Suarez was excellent transfer work.
Would have been better if they had only bought Suarez.
I think a lot of the support for No Deal is based on the idea that we won't have to pay the divorce bill if we walk away. These warnings should put paid to the fantasy that we would be negotiating from strength in a No Deal scenario.
What warnings? Varadkar’s apparently crazed ramblings about banning flights from U.K. airspace?
Has he said anything beyond the notice to stakeholders that went out in January?
Air carriers of the United Kingdom will no longer enjoy traffic rights under any air transport agreement to which the Union is a party, be it to or from the territory of the United Kingdom, be it to or from the territory of any of the EU Member States
So American Airlines want to fly to London, and BA vice versa. And Varadkar and his mates are going to phone the Donald ( who’s such an EU fan) and tell him and the U.K. they jolly well can’t, and we and the Americans are going to listen? The Irish going to shoot them down with a couple of Air Sea Rescue helicopters are they? Or is it a trade blockade now too? And that’s helps Ireland how?
How does this help your cause? Are you trying to frighten us into loving the EU? Because it’s not going to work.
It’s this kind of utter crap that undermines some of the better points Remainers make.
The Americans are currently telling us that we can't have our own version of Open Skies, only a standard bilateral deal. Which would, in effect, allow American, Delta, etc., to fly between the US and the UK, but not British Airways. (Because BA is not 51% British owned as it a part of IAG.)
What's the old phrase ... "You can almost hear the flapping of white coats"? I suppose the current phrase is 'mental health issues."
Or is it being the MP for Broxstowe? Yet Dr P seems safe enough to be allowed to walk around in public.
I'm happy to listen.
Many Remainers are sort of hung-up in varying degrees on the referendum. I think Greening suggested a three-way vote on (Brexit1, Brexit2, Remain) the other day. Now if you believe in referenda then you shouldn't have a Remain clause really.
Absolutely all Remainers though are worth listening to. The conflicts that have caused them concern are really there.
Brexit is a starting point for a life outside the EU, but quite where we find ourselves in the spectrum of what that might mean is entirely open to debate. The politics of the next twenty years will be substantially shaped by this.
However, he said there were contingency plans for Irish airports and seaports in event of a no deal Brexit.
Link 2
At the meeting, Ministers agreed to hire 700 additional customs officials to be deployed at ports and airports, and 300 extra staff to carry out checks on agricultural produce and animals travelling between Ireland and the UK after Brexit.
They are activating the contingency plans.
Well I hope we are too.
Every time I feel despair at the idiotic behaviour of the British government, along comes some EU person to remind me how equally obtuse the EU is being.
It’s not hard to understand: Britain has voted to leave the EU. Depending on your point of view this is either a good or bad thing or, more likely, a bit of both. It makes sense for both us and the EU to have some new arrangement for matters of mutual interest in place. With goodwill this can - eventually - be achieved. Britain needs to be realistic. But the EU needs to stop behaving as if Britain is - or should be treated as - some sort of pariah state which deserves to be punished for not liking the EU.
Does the EU really think that putting Britain under some sort of blockade with no-one able to get in or out of the country is in the EU’s interests?
They have their red lines and we have our red lines.
With Brexit we could become a 'lawless' country within a few months as we've not prepped for undoing 40 odd years of trading relationship and laws.
You'll probably 'appreciate' the analogy to Brexit I was given yesterday in Frankfurt.
Brexit is like Nick Leeson, the first mistake was survivable, in doubling down we've made the mistake even worse.
UK as Barings was not an analogy that cheered me up.
Red lines? Someone needs to confiscate these fools’ crayons before it’s too late.
I think a lot of the support for No Deal is based on the idea that we won't have to pay the divorce bill if we walk away. These warnings should put paid to the fantasy that we would be negotiating from strength in a No Deal scenario.
What warnings? Varadkar’s apparently crazed ramblings about banning flights from U.K. airspace?
Has he said anything beyond the notice to stakeholders that went out in January?
Air carriers of the United Kingdom will no longer enjoy traffic rights under any air transport agreement to which the Union is a party, be it to or from the territory of the United Kingdom, be it to or from the territory of any of the EU Member States
So American Airlines want to fly to London, and BA vice versa. And Varadkar and his mates are going to phone the Donald ( who’s such an EU fan) and tell him and the U.K. they jolly well can’t, and we and the Americans are going to listen? The Irish going to shoot them down with a couple of Air Sea Rescue helicopters are they? Or is it a trade blockade now too? And that’s helps Ireland how?
How does this help your cause? Are you trying to frighten us into loving the EU? Because it’s not going to work.
It’s this kind of utter crap that undermines some of the better points Remainers make.
How is it utter crap to point out that the immediate consequence of dropping out of a legal framework with nothing to replace it is that you also lose the benefits? It seems pretty self-evident and not at all an emotive point to me.
The nuances of Brexit negotiations often leave me bemused in their apparent complexity.
One thing I am 100% certain on is that aviation will not stop to and from the UK even in the event of a no deal Brexit.
Seeing Remainers claim otherwise makes me wonder just how much of their other claims are cods-wallop.
Apparently the BBC idiotic decision not just to apologise to Cliff Richard is going to cost £5 million in legal fees.
That was the thing I found most remarkable about the whole case. Did the senior management really think this was ok? The case was screaming out for settlement and a sensible tender.
The case has been handled appallingly after the BBC has behaved appallingly. Heads should roll. But on the point of law, the BBC is right to press. There is public interest in the fact that a public figure is under investigation in relation to a possible criminal offence.
To take an unrelated example, Vote Leave have just been referred to the police by the Electoral Commission. If this were hypothetically to widen to include, say, Michael Gove, do we really want the law to prevent that fact from being reported?
Reporting the fact is fine.
What is not fine is the police giving advance notice of a raid or charge to the press before the individual is informed and the BBC treating the raid/charging process as some sort of entertainment. IMO the police were at least as much at fault as the BBC.
A few years ago I was told by a senior member of the City of London Police that one of the metrics on which senior detectives were judged was how often they got their cases into the press. Dangerous: this risks contaminating and prejudicing the investigative process.
I think a lot of the support for No Deal is based on the idea that we won't have to pay the divorce bill if we walk away. These warnings should put paid to the fantasy that we would be negotiating from strength in a No Deal scenario.
It is worth remembering that in a No Deal scenario, we would be unable to be shareholders in the EIB*. As part of the divorce proceedings, we are being paid (IIRC) €7bn for our stake in it. Our "in" cost is about a quarter of that level, and it's possible we would only get our in cost back - and that after a few years of litigation.
* As in the Articles of Association require you to be an EU country to be a shareholder. If the EIB sent us €1.6bn and told us "thanks!", it's hard to see what we could do about it.
I think we could set off the remaining value of our share against other liabilities we have to the EU. And we do have such liabilities. The idea that no deal means we just bank £40bn is absurd.
Apparently the BBC idiotic decision not just to apologise to Cliff Richard is going to cost £5 million in legal fees.
That was the thing I found most remarkable about the whole case. Did the senior management really think this was ok? The case was screaming out for settlement and a sensible tender.
The case has been handled appallingly after the BBC has behaved appallingly. Heads should roll. But on the point of law, the BBC is right to press. There is public interest in the fact that a public figure is under investigation in relation to a possible criminal offence.
To take an unrelated example, Vote Leave have just been referred to the police by the Electoral Commission. If this were hypothetically to widen to include, say, Michael Gove, do we really want the law to prevent that fact from being reported?
No I wouldn’t. But there is a big difference between reporting a search and having a helicopter hanging over the house. That was a clear and serious breach of privacy. It is not the report, it is the way it was done.
The judge held that as a general principle there was a reasonable expectation of privacy over the fact of investigation, cf para 248:
Apparently the BBC idiotic decision not just to apologise to Cliff Richard is going to cost £5 million in legal fees.
That was the thing I found most remarkable about the whole case. Did the senior management really think this was ok? The case was screaming out for settlement and a sensible tender.
The case has been handled appallingly after the BBC has behaved appallingly. Heads should roll. But on the point of law, the BBC is right to press. There is public interest in the fact that a public figure is under investigation in relation to a possible criminal offence.
To take an unrelated example, Vote Leave have just been referred to the police by the Electoral Commission. If this were hypothetically to widen to include, say, Michael Gove, do we really want the law to prevent that fact from being reported?
No I wouldn’t. But there is a big difference between reporting a search and having a helicopter hanging over the house. That was a clear and serious breach of privacy. It is not the report, it is the way it was done.
Interested to hear the views of PB’s legal eagles on the damages calculation. £210k was an order of magnitude lower than I expected, given the victim’s reputation, the circumstances and the unwillingness to apologise.
I've not read the judgment but I did see a brief report from a reliable media outlet that said the £210k needs to seen in context of the £400k already agreed with South Yorkshire Police.
So, if anything, it's been the other way round - Israeli politics has shifted right in response to greater militancy from the Palestinians (or more to the point, from the state that funds and directs Hamas and doesn't want peace).
Israel continually steals land from Palestine, Israel controls Palestinian air, Israel blockades Palestinian from receiving goods, Israel kills Palestinians at a far higher rate than the other way around.
These are acts of war (well maybe less so some of them) you cannot go to war with people and commit war like actions and then accuse the other side of being the problem and the reason there is no peace.
Hamas would have to kill off all the Palestinians and give up all the land to Israel to achieve peace, which admittedly they will not do, so yes I suppose they do share some of the blame.
Until Israel stops committing acts of war on Palestine talking about wanting peace is a vile lie designed to justify their continued war.
If a foreign country did to the UK what Israel does to Palestine it would be war, nobody would buy any excuses about wanting peace as they continued to steal UK land and kill UK citizens whilst blocking goods from coming in.
I suppose there is a disclaimer, I do buy the idea they want peace, in much the same way almost any aggressive nation in a conflict would rather their opponents didn't fight back. What they have clearly proven is that peace isn't more important than continuing to do what they want. Given the inability of the Palestinians to provide any serious level of fightback, huge support and funding from the USA and most of the rest of the world not really caring it is probably a sensible calculation, morality aside.
Also Israel equals the government, there are individuals within Israel who genuinely do want peace and don't approve of their continued war with the Palestinians
What's the old phrase ... "You can almost hear the flapping of white coats"? I suppose the current phrase is 'mental health issues."
Or is it being the MP for Broxstowe? Yet Dr P seems safe enough to be allowed to walk around in public.
I'm happy to listen.
Many Remainers are sort of hung-up in varying degrees on the referendum. I think Greening suggested a three-way vote on (Brexit1, Brexit2, Remain) the other day. Now if you believe in referenda then you shouldn't have a Remain clause really.
Absolutely all Remainers though are worth listening to. The conflicts that have caused them concern are really there.
Brexit is a starting point for a life outside the EU, but quite where we find ourselves in the spectrum of what that might mean is entirely open to debate. The politics of the next twenty years will be substantially shaped by this.
or may not
Well I'd be happy to bet if you can structure a suitable clause!
OK sure, "will be" can be replaced by "i think will be"
I think a lot of the support for No Deal is based on the idea that we won't have to pay the divorce bill if we walk away. These warnings should put paid to the fantasy that we would be negotiating from strength in a No Deal scenario.
What warnings? Varadkar’s apparently crazed ramblings about banning flights from U.K. airspace?
Has he said anything beyond the notice to stakeholders that went out in January?
Air carriers of the United Kingdom will no longer enjoy traffic rights under any air transport agreement to which the Union is a party, be it to or from the territory of the United Kingdom, be it to or from the territory of any of the EU Member States
So American Airlines want to fly to London, and BA vice versa. And Varadkar and his mates are going to phone the Donald ( who’s such an EU fan) and tell him and the U.K. they jolly well can’t, and we and the Americans are going to listen? The Irish going to shoot them down with a couple of Air Sea Rescue helicopters are they? Or is it a trade blockade now too? And that’s helps Ireland how?
How does this help your cause? Are you trying to frighten us into loving the EU? Because it’s not going to work.
It’s this kind of utter crap that undermines some of the better points Remainers make.
How is it utter crap to point out that the immediate consequence of dropping out of a legal framework with nothing to replace it is that you also lose the benefits? It seems pretty self-evident and not at all an emotive point to me.
Shush, the Leavers are fantasising about putting on goggles and getting into Spitfires. Don’t spoil their fantasy.
That made me laugh.
Reminded me of the fast show. Ron manager jumpers for goal posts.
Totally off topic, but the English transfer window closes in just over 3 weeks.
Anyone amazed that apart from Liverpool there's not much transfer business going on?
It might be a hectic few weeks.
Who will be the new Karel Poborsky?
Are Liverpool going to buy another Benteke, Borini, Carroll. Keane, Konchesky. Gives us all a good laugh.
Or another Torres, Suarez, Coutinho or Salah.
It always makes me laugh when opponents of Liverpool mention Carroll. Carroll was part of an excellent set of deals. He was purchased along with a rather unheard of player funded by the sale to Chelsea of Torres who was past his peak. That certain other player was Suarez.
Selling Torres to buy Carroll and Suarez was excellent transfer work.
Would have been better if they had only bought Suarez.
With the benefit of hindsight but nobody has that at the time. Looking at it as a whole the sale of Torres funding the purchase of Carrol and Suarez was an absolutely excellent deal.
I think a lot of the support for No Deal is based on the idea that we won't have to pay the divorce bill if we walk away. These warnings should put paid to the fantasy that we would be negotiating from strength in a No Deal scenario.
What warnings? Varadkar’s apparently crazed ramblings about banning flights from U.K. airspace?
Has he said anything beyond the notice to stakeholders that went out in January?
Air carriers of the United Kingdom will no longer enjoy traffic rights under any air transport agreement to which the Union is a party, be it to or from the territory of the United Kingdom, be it to or from the territory of any of the EU Member States
So American Airlines want to fly to London, and BA vice versa. And Varadkar and his mates are going to phone the Donald ( who’s such an EU fan) and tell him and the U.K. they jolly well can’t, and we and the Americans are going to listen? The Irish going to shoot them down with a couple of Air Sea Rescue helicopters are they? Or is it a trade blockade now too? And that’s helps Ireland how?
How does this help your cause? Are you trying to frighten us into loving the EU? Because it’s not going to work.
It’s this kind of utter crap that undermines some of the better points Remainers make.
How is it utter crap to point out that the immediate consequence of dropping out of a legal framework with nothing to replace it is that you also lose the benefits? It seems pretty self-evident and not at all an emotive point to me.
The nuances of Brexit negotiations often leave me bemused in their apparent complexity.
One thing I am 100% certain on is that aviation will not stop to and from the UK even in the event of a no deal Brexit.
Seeing Remainers claim otherwise makes me wonder just how much of their other claims are cods-wallop.
So Ireland is going to join Saudi, Egypt et al in violating international treaties (in their case with Qatar) - you can close your airspace - but you can’t do it to only one countries airlines....
Apparently the BBC idiotic decision not just to apologise to Cliff Richard is going to cost £5 million in legal fees.
That was the thing I found most remarkable about the whole case. Did the senior management really think this was ok? The case was screaming out for settlement and a sensible tender.
The case has been handled appallingly after the BBC has behaved appallingly. Heads should roll. But on the point of law, the BBC is right to press. There is public interest in the fact that a public figure is under investigation in relation to a possible criminal offence.
To take an unrelated example, Vote Leave have just been referred to the police by the Electoral Commission. If this were hypothetically to widen to include, say, Michael Gove, do we really want the law to prevent that fact from being reported?
No I wouldn’t. But there is a big difference between reporting a search and having a helicopter hanging over the house. That was a clear and serious breach of privacy. It is not the report, it is the way it was done.
Interested to hear the views of PB’s legal eagles on the damages calculation. £210k was an order of magnitude lower than I expected, given the victim’s reputation, the circumstances and the unwillingness to apologise.
I've not read the judgment but I did see a brief report from a reliable media outlet that said the £210k needs to seen in context of the £400k already agreed with South Yorkshire Police.
Apparently the BBC idiotic decision not just to apologise to Cliff Richard is going to cost £5 million in legal fees.
That was the thing I found most remarkable about the whole case. Did the senior management really think this was ok? The case was screaming out for settlement and a sensible tender.
The case has been handled appallingly after the BBC has behaved appallingly. Heads should roll. But on the point of law, the BBC is right to press. There is public interest in the fact that a public figure is under investigation in relation to a possible criminal offence.
To take an unrelated example, Vote Leave have just been referred to the police by the Electoral Commission. If this were hypothetically to widen to include, say, Michael Gove, do we really want the law to prevent that fact from being reported?
No I wouldn’t. But there is a big difference between reporting a search and having a helicopter hanging over the house. That was a clear and serious breach of privacy. It is not the report, it is the way it was done.
Interested to hear the views of PB’s legal eagles on the damages calculation. £210k was an order of magnitude lower than I expected, given the victim’s reputation, the circumstances and the unwillingness to apologise.
I've not read the judgment but I did see a brief report from a reliable media outlet that said the £210k needs to seen in context of the £400k already agreed with South Yorkshire Police.
However, he said there were contingency plans for Irish airports and seaports in event of a no deal Brexit.
Link 2
At the meeting, Ministers agreed to hire 700 additional customs officials to be deployed at ports and airports, and 300 extra staff to carry out checks on agricultural produce and animals travelling between Ireland and the UK after Brexit.
They are activating the contingency plans.
Well I hope we are too.
Every time I feel despair at the idiotic behaviour of the British government, along comes some EU person to remind me how equally obtuse the EU is being.
It’s not hard to understand: Britain has voted to leave the EU. Depending on your point of view this is either a good or bad thing or, more likely, a bit of both. It makes sense for both us and the EU to have some new arrangement for matters of mutual interest in place. With goodwill this can - eventually - be achieved. Britain needs to be realistic. But the EU needs to stop behaving as if Britain is - or should be treated as - some sort of pariah state which deserves to be punished for not liking the EU.
Does the EU really think that putting Britain under some sort of blockade with no-one able to get in or out of the country is in the EU’s interests?
I think that's the EU's idea of a negotiating ploy and why not, the UK has shown itself idea-less about negotiating so it'll probably work and we'll offer a concession we have no need to. My fear is we finish up paying what we're paying now and having to do what we're told.
justin124 said: I have no time for Anti-Semitism at all and seriously doubt that the issue would have arisen in our own politics were we still looking at the Israel of David BenGurion - Golda Meier - Levi Eschcoll or indeed Simon Peres. The shift to the extreme Right as evidenced by the oppressive policies of Netanyahu's Likud and its adoption of quasi-Apartheid policies has inevitably stirred humanitarian concerns for the plight of the Palestinian minority and created a breeding ground for Hamas and other groups.To be strongly opposed to the present Israeli Government should not be construed as Anti-Semitism - yet many appear to fail to see the difference.
Justin's argument is pretty nonsensical and divorced from fact. Netanyahu's policies are dreadful and have added fuel to the fire, but he didn't create a 'breeding ground' for Hamas. They were elected in 2006 shortly after Sharon's national government withdrew from Gaza and kicked out a bunch of settlers. Israel then refused to negotiate with Hamas who were and are still a group that failed to renounce their call for Israel to be wiped out or violent attacks, and we've then seen ever more intransigent right-wing governments since, as more Israelis have come to see a negotiated peace as implausible and focused on security. That's largely why you've got all these oppressively stringent security measures and blockades - because it's the only way the Israeli government thinks it can stop Hamas carrying out attacks at will, given their history and expertise in suicide attacks.
So, if anything, it's been the other way round - Israeli politics has shifted right in response to greater militancy from the Palestinians (or more to the point, from the state that funds and directs Hamas and doesn't want peace).
Could I recommend to you a film called the Gatekeepers? I don't think it'll change your view at all, but I do think it provides a really interesting background. (You may of course have already seen it)
I have seen it. It is very good. I don't really have a view on the Israel-Palestine conflict, other than it maybe insoluble for several generations and that it's an ugly business on all sides that doesn't do wonders for anyone's humanity. Which is why I object to the naive 'Israel bad, poor Palestine' narrative that's constantly pushed - especially when it claims something that's obviously untrue in terms of causation - whatever you think of Likud and Netanyahu's policies, and I think he's appalling, they demonstrably didn't cause the rise of Hamas - who surged to power at a time when Sharon and Olmert were withdrawing from the OT.
Wikipedia suggests; "The Irish Air Corps lacks a dedicated air intercept capability, and previous air incursions have seen the Royal Air Force respond to and escort unwelcome aircraft out of Irish controlled airspace."
I suspect these ideas won't make it to the Taoiseach's top ideas list.
Are you suggesting that airlines would routinely violate a sovereign nation’s airspace?
Without a method of enforcing it, I’d suggest they aren’t sovereign.
Many smaller countries don't have airforces capable of shooting down airliners, so I'm not sure that's fair. (Iceland, for example, doesn't have a single fighter plane.)
I know you used to have a Putin avatar, but not everyone jumps to the conclusion that shooting down airliners is the definition of enforcement
I hate to argue alongside the Brexiteers, but I think the argument about grounding flights does have a problem. Isn't the Shanwick Oceanic flight information region (EGGX) handled jointly between Prestwick (Scotland) and Shannon (Ireland)? Adding that to the Scottish region (EGPX, handled by Prestwick in Scotland) and the London region (EGTT, handled by Swanwick in England), and the combination adds up to a rather large lump of sky. It's difficult to see how grounding UK flights doesn't also ground flights to Northern Europe from North America and vice-versa.
I think a lot of the support for No Deal is based on the idea that we won't have to pay the divorce bill if we walk away. These warnings should put paid to the fantasy that we would be negotiating from strength in a No Deal scenario.
What warnings? Varadkar’s apparently crazed ramblings about banning flights from U.K. airspace?
Has he said anything beyond the notice to stakeholders that went out in January?
Air carriers of the United Kingdom will no longer enjoy traffic rights under any air transport agreement to which the Union is a party, be it to or from the territory of the United Kingdom, be it to or from the territory of any of the EU Member States
So American Airlines want to fly to London, and BA vice versa. And Varadkar and his mates are going to phone the Donald ( who’s such an EU fan) and tell him and the U.K. they jolly well can’t, and we and the Americans are going to listen? The Irish going to shoot them down with a couple of Air Sea Rescue helicopters are they? Or is it a trade blockade now too? And that’s helps Ireland how?
How does this help your cause? Are you trying to frighten us into loving the EU? Because it’s not going to work.
It’s this kind of utter crap that undermines some of the better points Remainers make.
How is it utter crap to point out that the immediate consequence of dropping out of a legal framework with nothing to replace it is that you also lose the benefits? It seems pretty self-evident and not at all an emotive point to me.
The nuances of Brexit negotiations often leave me bemused in their apparent complexity.
One thing I am 100% certain on is that aviation will not stop to and from the UK even in the event of a no deal Brexit.
Seeing Remainers claim otherwise makes me wonder just how much of their other claims are cods-wallop.
However, he said there were contingency plans for Irish airports and seaports in event of a no deal Brexit.
Link 2
At the meeting, Ministers agreed to hire 700 additional customs officials to be deployed at ports and airports, and 300 extra staff to carry out checks on agricultural produce and animals travelling between Ireland and the UK after Brexit.
They are activating the contingency plans.
Well I hope we are too.
Every time I feel despair at the idiotic behaviour of the British government, along comes some EU person to remind me how equally obtuse the EU is being.
It’s not hard to understand: Britain has voted to leave the EU. Depending on your point of view this is either a good or bad thing or, more likely, a bit of both. It makes sense for both us and the EU to have some new arrangement for matters of mutual interest in place. With goodwill this can - eventually - be achieved. Britain needs to be realistic. But the EU needs to stop behaving as if Britain is - or should be treated as - some sort of pariah state which deserves to be punished for not liking the EU.
Does the EU really think that putting Britain under some sort of blockade with no-one able to get in or out of the country is in the EU’s interests?
Planes won't stop flying. One should ignore the hype.
However, he said there were contingency plans for Irish airports and seaports in event of a no deal Brexit.
Link 2
At the meeting, Ministers agreed to hire 700 additional customs officials to be deployed at ports and airports, and 300 extra staff to carry out checks on agricultural produce and animals travelling between Ireland and the UK after Brexit.
They are activating the contingency plans.
Well I hope we are too.
Every time I feel despair at the idiotic behaviour of the British government, along comes some EU person to remind me how equally obtuse the EU is being.
It’s not hard to understand: Britain has voted to leave the EU. Depending on your point of view this is either a good or bad thing or, more likely, a bit of both. It makes sense for both us and the EU to have some new arrangement for matters of mutual interest in place. With goodwill this can - eventually - be achieved. Britain needs to be realistic. But the EU needs to stop behaving as if Britain is - or should be treated as - some sort of pariah state which deserves to be punished for not liking the EU.
Does the EU really think that putting Britain under some sort of blockade with no-one able to get in or out of the country is in the EU’s interests?
They have their red lines and we have our red lines.
With Brexit we could become a 'lawless' country within a few months as we've not prepped for undoing 40 odd years of trading relationship and laws.
You'll probably 'appreciate' the analogy to Brexit I was given yesterday in Frankfurt.
Brexit is like Nick Leeson, the first mistake was survivable, in doubling down we've made the mistake even worse.
UK as Barings was not an analogy that cheered me up.
I’m well aware of the red lines. But that wasn’t the question I asked.
Re the Leeson analogy: what was the “first mistake”? And what is the “doubling down”?
Treating the result of a democratic vote as the same as a dishonest fraud is a category mistake. The EU may think we’re wrong to do this. Plenty of people in Britain do. But they would do better to try and understand why their vision of the future has been rejected by a country after 4 decades of experience of it and try and come up with some alternative view of what the British-European relationship should be. Or they can blockade us. I would only politely suggest that doing that is silly and not in their interests.
I’m not sure I agree with the “lawless” point. Aren’t we incorporating all EU law into our own so that it effectively vecomes British law?
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
Totally off topic, but the English transfer window closes in just over 3 weeks.
Anyone amazed that apart from Liverpool there's not much transfer business going on?
It might be a hectic few weeks.
Who will be the new Karel Poborsky?
Are Liverpool going to buy another Benteke, Borini, Carroll. Keane, Konchesky. Gives us all a good laugh.
Or another Torres, Suarez, Coutinho or Salah.
It always makes me laugh when opponents of Liverpool mention Carroll. Carroll was part of an excellent set of deals. He was purchased along with a rather unheard of player funded by the sale to Chelsea of Torres who was past his peak. That certain other player was Suarez.
Selling Torres to buy Carroll and Suarez was excellent transfer work.
The transfer for Suarez was already in the pipeline, it had been before Hodgson was fired as manager.
Carroll was signed because Torres was sold. You wanted Suarez regardless.
Carroll was a terrible deal for the money. Although you did get great money for Torres. I don't think you can really call it a great deal by adding Suarez in with it because the only connection is they were signed at similar times, Suarez was a great deal though.
The best argument for Carroll is that you had Carroll + £15M instead of Torres, who went a bit crap at that point.
So, if anything, it's been the other way round - Israeli politics has shifted right in response to greater militancy from the Palestinians (or more to the point, from the state that funds and directs Hamas and doesn't want peace).
Essential to bear in mind demographic changes to understand the evolution in Israeli politics too - the arrival of ex-Soviet Jewry in large numbers from the 1990s has transformed the nation. These weren't people who saw Arabs as (at least potential) brothers or business partners on account of living among them for centuries, nor did they arrive under the auspices of an idealistic Zionist socialist project as many European Jews did. Different values, different culture, different political preferences and objectives.
Why Members of the 'Putin Aliyah' Are Abandoning Israel - particularly interesting albeit mostly anecdotal; the early wave of post-Cold War Russian Jewish migrants, who tended to be conservative, more strongly Jewish-identifying and found work - and tasted combat - in the IDF, didn't get on well with the later wave of migration of liberal professionals of Jewish descent who didn't enjoy Putin's authoritarianism and saw their ancestry as a means of getting a passport to a more "Western" state.
The first piece is an absolutely must read for anyone interested in understanding Israel.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
Ban on all Irish goods - buy alternatives - beef, cider, butter, cheese etc
I’m well aware of the red lines. But that wasn’t the question I asked.
Re the Leeson analogy: what was the “first mistake”? And what is the “doubling down”?
Treating the result of a democratic vote as the same as a dishonest fraud is a category mistake. The EU may think we’re wrong to do this. Plenty of people in Britain do. But they would do better to try and understand why their vision of the future has been rejected by a country after 4 decades of experience of it and try and come up with some alternative view of what the British-European relationship should be. Or they can blockade us. I would only politely suggest that doing that is silly and not in their interests.
I’m not sure I agree with the “lawless” point. Aren’t we incorporating all EU law into our own so that it effectively vecomes British law?
The mistake was to offer an undeliverable Brexit then entrenching that position with things like 'No deal is better than a bad deal' and 'They need us more than we need them'
As for the lawless bit the ERG lot may put the kibosh on that.
I hate to argue alongside the Brexiteers, but I think the argument about grounding flights does have a problem. Isn't the Shanwick Oceanic flight information region (EGGX) handled jointly between Prestwick (Scotland) and Shannon (Ireland)? Adding that to the Scottish region (EGPX, handled by Prestwick in Scotland) and the London region (EGTT, handled by Swanwick in England), and the combination adds up to a rather large lump of sky. It's difficult to see how grounding UK flights doesn't also ground flights to Northern Europe from North America and vice-versa.
As others have said, if no deal is agreed on anything else then I’m sure some mighty fudge will be applied to aviation.
Well, yes. "Hey, let's shut down the North Atlantic" will go down like a cup of cold sick. Shut down Shanwick, Scotland and London and you can't fly the normal route from New York to Paris.
What's the old phrase ... "You can almost hear the flapping of white coats"? I suppose the current phrase is 'mental health issues."
Or is it being the MP for Broxstowe? Yet Dr P seems safe enough to be allowed to walk around in public.
I'm happy to listen.
Many Remainers are sort of hung-up in varying degrees on the referendum. I think Greening suggested a three-way vote on (Brexit1, Brexit2, Remain) the other day. Now if you believe in referenda then you shouldn't have a Remain clause really.
Absolutely all Remainers though are worth listening to. The conflicts that have caused them concern are really there.
Brexit is a starting point for a life outside the EU, but quite where we find ourselves in the spectrum of what that might mean is entirely open to debate. The politics of the next twenty years will be substantially shaped by this.
or may not
Well I'd be happy to bet if you can structure a suitable clause!
OK sure, "will be" can be replaced by "i think will be"
I'm happy with that. We should be negotiating BREXIT.
Could I recommend to you a film called the Gatekeepers? I don't think it'll change your view at all, but I do think it provides a really interesting background. (You may of course have already seen it)
I have seen it. It is very good. I don't really have a view on the Israel-Palestine conflict, other than it maybe insoluble for several generations and that it's an ugly business on all sides that doesn't do wonders for anyone's humanity. Which is why I object to the naive 'Israel bad, poor Palestine' narrative that's constantly pushed - especially when it claims something that's obviously untrue in terms of causation - whatever you think of Likud and Netanyahu's policies, and I think he's appalling, they demonstrably didn't cause the rise of Hamas - who surged to power at a time when Sharon and Olmert were withdrawing from the OT.
I dislike the 'Israel bad, poor Palestine' narrative too. It's simply wrong, and completely so. However as in that film there is a degree to which Israeli's recognise that they've been at fault in managing their relations with their neighbours.
So Ireland is going to join Saudi, Egypt et al in violating international treaties (in their case with Qatar) - you can close your airspace - but you can’t do it to only one countries airlines....
I think a lot of the support for No Deal is based on the idea that we won't have to pay the divorce bill if we walk away. These warnings should put paid to the fantasy that we would be negotiating from strength in a No Deal scenario.
It is worth remembering that in a No Deal scenario, we would be unable to be shareholders in the EIB*. As part of the divorce proceedings, we are being paid (IIRC) €7bn for our stake in it. Our "in" cost is about a quarter of that level, and it's possible we would only get our in cost back - and that after a few years of litigation.
* As in the Articles of Association require you to be an EU country to be a shareholder. If the EIB sent us €1.6bn and told us "thanks!", it's hard to see what we could do about it.
Could we not withhold our EIB debt interest and loan repayments if they don't cough up - an EIB loan is funding most of the costs of the £1bn extension of the northern line to Battersea power station amongst other projects.
Completely off topic but at the cricket yesterday there was an extremely loud pop.
A large Indian man said, “don’t worry lads, we’re Indians.”
Indians, Brits and all found this very funny. It was racist, I suppose, but it highlighted where we have a problem. And it is not with Indian immigrants. They love their cricket, they love their beer and they know how to have a good time in the same way we do, even if they fail the Tebbit test spectacularly.
About the only difference I noted was by the time Root got his 100 they had all left. They don’t like to watch their team lose. But not for the first time I greatly enjoyed their company.
Why would you think it racist?
Because he was stereotyping Pakistanis as people who blow things up.
Was he? Or was he stereotyping Muslims? Who are not a race, of course.
I think that there was a bit of a clue in the reference to Indians. I would agree with other comments that Indians are pretty recist about their sub continental neighbours and they are not shy about it either.
Since Pakistan was set up as a Muslim state I think it could just as easily have been referring to Muslims.
I too have heard Indians be pretty blunt about Pakistan and Muslims. Frankly, some of it needs saying. Pakistan is utterly two faced in its approach to Islamist ideology and terrorism.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
While you can, for example, source British-produced flour, oats, sugar (from beets), salt (by Maldon, for example), vinegar (apple cider, say, as opposed to balsamic), mustard (although the Colman’s factory in Norwich is closing next year), Marmite (the Burton upon Trent factory isn’t going anywhere but, frankly, who can risk a run on their supplies?), lentils and more, you’ll want a stash of your high-quality EU goods, too. Start with olive oil, pepper, pasta and rice. For flavour, you’ll want spices, chilli and herbs, anchovies and tomato (paste, tinned and passata).
Then you need bulk and protein: canned and dried pulses (kidney beans, butter beans, black beans, chickpeas) and tinned fish (sardines and tuna). Add to that tinned olives, pickled capers and jarred peppers, and you’ve basically got a cheat’s Ottolenghi.
The good news is that, while Britain doesn’t produce enough of the fresh produce it needs, it certainly can. As farmers Jane Baxter and Guy Watson pointed out the last time there was a scare, this country grows wonderful stuff – and you don’t need a field to start. So, while you’re stockpiling canned goods, buy a stash of seed packets, too.
I hate to argue alongside the Brexiteers, but I think the argument about grounding flights does have a problem. Isn't the Shanwick Oceanic flight information region (EGGX) handled jointly between Prestwick (Scotland) and Shannon (Ireland)? Adding that to the Scottish region (EGPX, handled by Prestwick in Scotland) and the London region (EGTT, handled by Swanwick in England), and the combination adds up to a rather large lump of sky. It's difficult to see how grounding UK flights doesn't also ground flights to Northern Europe from North America and vice-versa.
As others have said, if no deal is agreed on anything else then I’m sure some mighty fudge will be applied to aviation.
Well, yes. "Hey, let's shut down the North Atlantic" will go down like a cup of cold sick. Shut down Shanwick, Scotland and London and you can't fly the normal route from New York to Paris.
Indeed, to say it would be massively disruptive to the rest of the EU would be something of an understatement.
Another thing they’ve not realised, according to posters on a pilots’ forum on the subject, is that around 50% of EASA’s own regulatory staff are British.
Could I recommend to you a film called the Gatekeepers? I don't think it'll change your view at all, but I do think it provides a really interesting background. (You may of course have already seen it)
I have seen it. It is very good. I don't really have a view on the Israel-Palestine conflict, other than it maybe insoluble for several generations and that it's an ugly business on all sides that doesn't do wonders for anyone's humanity. Which is why I object to the naive 'Israel bad, poor Palestine' narrative that's constantly pushed - especially when it claims something that's obviously untrue in terms of causation - whatever you think of Likud and Netanyahu's policies, and I think he's appalling, they demonstrably didn't cause the rise of Hamas - who surged to power at a time when Sharon and Olmert were withdrawing from the OT.
Hamas rise certainly wasn't caused by current leaders who weren't in power back then, to claim so would be illogical, they were however caused by Israeli policy. Hamas only formed decades after Israel did, there literally is no Hamas without Israeli policy towards Palestine, you can go on to argue about how deserved it was or not...
The logic behind the Israel have a partial excuse because Hamas are extreme it is also terrible flawed, Hamas came to power for quite a few reasons, corruption being one of them, they also offer basic aid to people in need, but one of the main reasons is the terrible state the Palestinians are forced to live in by Israel makes them more extreme. You aren't likely to get the Lib Dems spring up and take over as the governing force in an open prison. Stating that because of the open prison conditions the people seem quite extreme so we must continue or double down sounds like a strategy doomed to failure. Hamas took over in Gaza it seems to produce the opposite result.
You aren't going to blow up, starve or imprison the Palestinians into moderation. All evidence suggests that the Israeli strategy produces ever move extreme results. So I can only assume the people who advocate the opposition being too extreme so Israel have some cover don't understand this or actually want to give the Israelis cover to continue to do whatever they wish to the Palestinians.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
Could be a masterstroke really. A short sharp dose of panic buying might make the electorate realise what's at risk.
I’m well aware of the red lines. But that wasn’t the question I asked.
Re the Leeson analogy: what was the “first mistake”? And what is the “doubling down”?
Treating the result of a democratic vote as the same as a dishonest fraud is a category mistake. The EU may think we’re wrong to do this. Plenty of people in Britain do. But they would do better to try and understand why their vision of the future has been rejected by a country after 4 decades of experience of it and try and come up with some alternative view of what the British-European relationship should be. Or they can blockade us. I would only politely suggest that doing that is silly and not in their interests.
I’m not sure I agree with the “lawless” point. Aren’t we incorporating all EU law into our own so that it effectively vecomes British law?
The mistake was to offer an undeliverable Brexit then entrenching that position with things like 'No deal is better than a bad deal' and 'They need us more than we need them'
As for the lawless bit the ERG lot may put the kibosh on that.
Thanks. If I may say so the analogy with Barings is piss poor. The Frankfurt regulators ought to be looking at the beam - aka Deutsche Bank - in their own eyes; it makes Barings seem like small change.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
While you can, for example, source British-produced flour, oats, sugar (from beets), salt (by Maldon, for example), vinegar (apple cider, say, as opposed to balsamic), mustard (although the Colman’s factory in Norwich is closing next year), Marmite (the Burton upon Trent factory isn’t going anywhere but, frankly, who can risk a run on their supplies?), lentils and more, you’ll want a stash of your high-quality EU goods, too. Start with olive oil, pepper, pasta and rice. For flavour, you’ll want spices, chilli and herbs, anchovies and tomato (paste, tinned and passata).
Then you need bulk and protein: canned and dried pulses (kidney beans, butter beans, black beans, chickpeas) and tinned fish (sardines and tuna). Add to that tinned olives, pickled capers and jarred peppers, and you’ve basically got a cheat’s Ottolenghi.
The good news is that, while Britain doesn’t produce enough of the fresh produce it needs, it certainly can. As farmers Jane Baxter and Guy Watson pointed out the last time there was a scare, this country grows wonderful stuff – and you don’t need a field to start. So, while you’re stockpiling canned goods, buy a stash of seed packets, too.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
While you can, for example, source British-produced flour, oats, sugar (from beets), salt (by Maldon, for example), vinegar (apple cider, say, as opposed to balsamic), mustard (although the Colman’s factory in Norwich is closing next year), Marmite (the Burton upon Trent factory isn’t going anywhere but, frankly, who can risk a run on their supplies?), lentils and more, you’ll want a stash of your high-quality EU goods, too. Start with olive oil, pepper, pasta and rice. For flavour, you’ll want spices, chilli and herbs, anchovies and tomato (paste, tinned and passata).
Then you need bulk and protein: canned and dried pulses (kidney beans, butter beans, black beans, chickpeas) and tinned fish (sardines and tuna). Add to that tinned olives, pickled capers and jarred peppers, and you’ve basically got a cheat’s Ottolenghi.
The good news is that, while Britain doesn’t produce enough of the fresh produce it needs, it certainly can. As farmers Jane Baxter and Guy Watson pointed out the last time there was a scare, this country grows wonderful stuff – and you don’t need a field to start. So, while you’re stockpiling canned goods, buy a stash of seed packets, too.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
Or takes their money out of the bank - remember the savings protection limit?
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
Or takes their money out of the bank - remember the savings protection limit?
How is that in play? I appreciate it's an EU aligned protection but wouldn't the government just continue the guarantee?
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
While you can, for example, source British-produced flour, oats, sugar (from beets), salt (by Maldon, for example), vinegar (apple cider, say, as opposed to balsamic), mustard (although the Colman’s factory in Norwich is closing next year), Marmite (the Burton upon Trent factory isn’t going anywhere but, frankly, who can risk a run on their supplies?), lentils and more, you’ll want a stash of your high-quality EU goods, too. Start with olive oil, pepper, pasta and rice. For flavour, you’ll want spices, chilli and herbs, anchovies and tomato (paste, tinned and passata).
Then you need bulk and protein: canned and dried pulses (kidney beans, butter beans, black beans, chickpeas) and tinned fish (sardines and tuna). Add to that tinned olives, pickled capers and jarred peppers, and you’ve basically got a cheat’s Ottolenghi.
The good news is that, while Britain doesn’t produce enough of the fresh produce it needs, it certainly can. As farmers Jane Baxter and Guy Watson pointed out the last time there was a scare, this country grows wonderful stuff – and you don’t need a field to start. So, while you’re stockpiling canned goods, buy a stash of seed packets, too.
I'm assuming from the bilious bellicosity directed at Varadkar (who seems to be much more in tune with the will of the Irish than certain UK pols are with that of Brits) that we're not in one of PB's 'grateful Paddies will soon rush back into the loving embrace of the UK' spasms. I'm sure the doggies will be back at that spew at some point though.
Completely off topic but at the cricket yesterday there was an extremely loud pop.
A large Indian man said, “don’t worry lads, we’re Indians.”
Indians, Brits and all found this very funny. It was racist, I suppose, but it highlighted where we have a problem. And it is not with Indian immigrants. They love their cricket, they love their beer and they know how to have a good time in the same way we do, even if they fail the Tebbit test spectacularly.
About the only difference I noted was by the time Root got his 100 they had all left. They don’t like to watch their team lose. But not for the first time I greatly enjoyed their company.
Why would you think it racist?
Because he was stereotyping Pakistanis as people who blow things up.
Was he? Or was he stereotyping Muslims? Who are not a race, of course.
I think that there was a bit of a clue in the reference to Indians. I would agree with other comments that Indians are pretty recist about their sub continental neighbours and they are not shy about it either.
Since Pakistan was set up as a Muslim state I think it could just as easily have been referring to Muslims.
I too have heard Indians be pretty blunt about Pakistan and Muslims. Frankly, some of it needs saying. Pakistan is utterly two faced in its approach to Islamist ideology and terrorism.
I find a lot of Indians both Islamist but also castist.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
While you can, for example, source British-produced flour, oats, sugar (from beets), salt (by Maldon, for example), vinegar (apple cider, say, as opposed to balsamic), mustard (although the Colman’s factory in Norwich is closing next year), Marmite (the Burton upon Trent factory isn’t going anywhere but, frankly, who can risk a run on their supplies?), lentils and more, you’ll want a stash of your high-quality EU goods, too. Start with olive oil, pepper, pasta and rice. For flavour, you’ll want spices, chilli and herbs, anchovies and tomato (paste, tinned and passata).
Then you need bulk and protein: canned and dried pulses (kidney beans, butter beans, black beans, chickpeas) and tinned fish (sardines and tuna). Add to that tinned olives, pickled capers and jarred peppers, and you’ve basically got a cheat’s Ottolenghi.
The good news is that, while Britain doesn’t produce enough of the fresh produce it needs, it certainly can. As farmers Jane Baxter and Guy Watson pointed out the last time there was a scare, this country grows wonderful stuff – and you don’t need a field to start. So, while you’re stockpiling canned goods, buy a stash of seed packets, too.
I'm assuming from the bilious bellicosity directed at Varadkar (who seems to be much more in tune with the will of the Irish than certain UK pols are with that of Brits) that we're not in one of PB's 'grateful Paddies will soon rush back into the loving embrace of the UK' spasms. I'm sure the doggies will be back at that spew at some point though.
Good spot - when a drunken potato munching bog trotting Oirishman starts yelling bellicose threats to Brits going about their business it’s best to avert eye contact and walk on by to be honest rather than engage. Good advice union old chap.
I'm assuming from the bilious bellicosity directed at Varadkar (who seems to be much more in tune with the will of the Irish than certain UK pols are with that of Brits) that we're not in one of PB's 'grateful Paddies will soon rush back into the loving embrace of the UK' spasms. I'm sure the doggies will be back at that spew at some point though.
We are only tough with them because we really care, not like their fair weathered friends on the continent who want to use them, we have something special. They just don't know what is good for them sometimes....
I’m well aware of the red lines. But that wasn’t the question I asked.
Re the Leeson analogy: what was the “first mistake”? And what is the “doubling down”?
Treating the result of a democratic vote as the same as a dishonest fraud is a category mistake. The EU may think we’re wrong to do this. Plenty of people in Britain do. But they would do better to try and understand why their vision of the future has been rejected by a country after 4 decades of experience of it and try and come up with some alternative view of what the British-European relationship should be. Or they can blockade us. I would only politely suggest that doing that is silly and not in their interests.
I’m not sure I agree with the “lawless” point. Aren’t we incorporating all EU law into our own so that it effectively vecomes British law?
It wasn't their vision of the future that was rejected but Cameron's vision of "ever bigger nose-pegs".
No Deal is a threat we're making to blockade ourselves. It's not credible of course, but they have to prepare for it.
I think a lot of the support for No Deal is based on the idea that we won't have to pay the divorce bill if we walk away. These warnings should put paid to the fantasy that we would be negotiating from strength in a No Deal scenario.
It is worth remembering that in a No Deal scenario, we would be unable to be shareholders in the EIB*. As part of the divorce proceedings, we are being paid (IIRC) €7bn for our stake in it. Our "in" cost is about a quarter of that level, and it's possible we would only get our in cost back - and that after a few years of litigation.
* As in the Articles of Association require you to be an EU country to be a shareholder. If the EIB sent us €1.6bn and told us "thanks!", it's hard to see what we could do about it.
Could we not withhold our EIB debt interest and loan repayments if they don't cough up - an EIB loan is funding most of the costs of the £1bn extension of the northern line to Battersea power station amongst other projects.
I think the problem is that we - the government - are legally prevented from being shareholders in the EIB. The only question would be the recompense that we would be offered for our shares. As the EIB is not a publicly traded company, there is a debate as to what its worth, and the EIB would argue we should be refunded what we paid for the shares originally.
The Northern Line extension has "Transport for London" as the borrower, and any court would side with the EIB, I suspect.
I'm assuming from the bilious bellicosity directed at Varadkar (who seems to be much more in tune with the will of the Irish than certain UK pols are with that of Brits) that we're not in one of PB's 'grateful Paddies will soon rush back into the loving embrace of the UK' spasms. I'm sure the doggies will be back at that spew at some point though.
Good spot - when a drunken potato munching bog trotting Oirishman starts yelling bellicose threats to Brits going about their business it’s best to avert eye contact and walk on by to be honest rather than engage. Good advice union old chap.
Haven't encountered many of them. It's drunken, priest bashing Ulstermen in blue taps that you have to look out for round my bit.
Too late to woo them, too many high profile people have sold the view it is crap better than the government sold its view, and they aren't about to change their view now. It would be seen as caving in.
I'm assuming from the bilious bellicosity directed at Varadkar (who seems to be much more in tune with the will of the Irish than certain UK pols are with that of Brits) that we're not in one of PB's 'grateful Paddies will soon rush back into the loving embrace of the UK' spasms. I'm sure the doggies will be back at that spew at some point though.
Good spot - when a drunken potato munching bog trotting Oirishman starts yelling bellicose threats to Brits going about their business it’s best to avert eye contact and walk on by to be honest rather than engage. Good advice union old chap.
Haven't encountered many of them. It's drunken, priest bashing Ulstermen in blue taps that you have to look out for round my bit.
Errrr: Corrib is a pretty big gas field, and will supply 60% of Ireland's needs. Indeed, I understand that they may need to reverse the pipeline to the UK, at least temporarily.
Completely off topic but at the cricket yesterday there was an extremely loud pop.
A large Indian man said, “don’t worry lads, we’re Indians.”
Indians, Brits and all found this very funny. It was racist, I suppose, but it highlighted where we have a problem. And it is not with Indian immigrants. They love their cricket, they love their beer and they know how to have a good time in the same way we do, even if they fail the Tebbit test spectacularly.
About the only difference I noted was by the time Root got his 100 they had all left. They don’t like to watch their team lose. But not for the first time I greatly enjoyed their company.
Why would you think it racist?
Because he was stereotyping Pakistanis as people who blow things up.
Was he? Or was he stereotyping Muslims? Who are not a race, of course.
I think that there was a bit of a clue in the reference to Indians. I would agree with other comments that Indians are pretty recist about their sub continental neighbours and they are not shy about it either.
Since Pakistan was set up as a Muslim state I think it could just as easily have been referring to Muslims.
I too have heard Indians be pretty blunt about Pakistan and Muslims. Frankly, some of it needs saying. Pakistan is utterly two faced in its approach to Islamist ideology and terrorism.
I find a lot of Indians both Islamist but also castist.
How can Indians be both Islamist and castist? Does Islam have a caste system?
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
While you can, for example, source British-produced flour, oats, sugar (from beets), salt (by Maldon, for example), vinegar (apple cider, say, as opposed to balsamic), mustard (although the Colman’s factory in Norwich is closing next year), Marmite (the Burton upon Trent factory isn’t going anywhere but, frankly, who can risk a run on their supplies?), lentils and more, you’ll want a stash of your high-quality EU goods, too. Start with olive oil, pepper, pasta and rice. For flavour, you’ll want spices, chilli and herbs, anchovies and tomato (paste, tinned and passata).
Then you need bulk and protein: canned and dried pulses (kidney beans, butter beans, black beans, chickpeas) and tinned fish (sardines and tuna). Add to that tinned olives, pickled capers and jarred peppers, and you’ve basically got a cheat’s Ottolenghi.
The good news is that, while Britain doesn’t produce enough of the fresh produce it needs, it certainly can. As farmers Jane Baxter and Guy Watson pointed out the last time there was a scare, this country grows wonderful stuff – and you don’t need a field to start. So, while you’re stockpiling canned goods, buy a stash of seed packets, too.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
While you can, for example, source British-produced flour, oats, sugar (from beets), salt (by Maldon, for example), vinegar (apple cider, say, as opposed to balsamic), mustard (although the Colman’s factory in Norwich is closing next year), Marmite (the Burton upon Trent factory isn’t going anywhere but, frankly, who can risk a run on their supplies?), lentils and more, you’ll want a stash of your high-quality EU goods, too. Start with olive oil, pepper, pasta and rice. For flavour, you’ll want spices, chilli and herbs, anchovies and tomato (paste, tinned and passata).
Then you need bulk and protein: canned and dried pulses (kidney beans, butter beans, black beans, chickpeas) and tinned fish (sardines and tuna). Add to that tinned olives, pickled capers and jarred peppers, and you’ve basically got a cheat’s Ottolenghi.
The good news is that, while Britain doesn’t produce enough of the fresh produce it needs, it certainly can. As farmers Jane Baxter and Guy Watson pointed out the last time there was a scare, this country grows wonderful stuff – and you don’t need a field to start. So, while you’re stockpiling canned goods, buy a stash of seed packets, too.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
While you can, for example, source British-produced flour, oats, sugar (from beets), salt (by Maldon, for example), vinegar (apple cider, say, as opposed to balsamic), mustard (although the Colman’s factory in Norwich is closing next year), Marmite (the Burton upon Trent factory isn’t going anywhere but, frankly, who can risk a run on their supplies?), lentils and more, you’ll want a stash of your high-quality EU goods, too. Start with olive oil, pepper, pasta and rice. For flavour, you’ll want spices, chilli and herbs, anchovies and tomato (paste, tinned and passata).
Then you need bulk and protein: canned and dried pulses (kidney beans, butter beans, black beans, chickpeas) and tinned fish (sardines and tuna). Add to that tinned olives, pickled capers and jarred peppers, and you’ve basically got a cheat’s Ottolenghi.
The good news is that, while Britain doesn’t produce enough of the fresh produce it needs, it certainly can. As farmers Jane Baxter and Guy Watson pointed out the last time there was a scare, this country grows wonderful stuff – and you don’t need a field to start. So, while you’re stockpiling canned goods, buy a stash of seed packets, too.
If I were you, I'd buy a rifle. You'll be able to shoot squirrels, badger, and deer, once the EU's economic sanctions really start to bite.
If we had to do entirely without EU foods I would miss some better French cheeses from Savoie, the best Spanish ham (e.g. pata negra de bellota), top notch Italian red wine.
Everything else, literally everything, could be sourced at home or from the White Commonwealth. Often more cheaply.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
While you can, for example, source British-produced flour, oats, sugar (from beets), salt (by Maldon, for example), vinegar (apple cider, say, as opposed to balsamic), mustard (although the Colman’s factory in Norwich is closing next year), Marmite (the Burton upon Trent factory isn’t going anywhere but, frankly, who can risk a run on their supplies?), lentils and more, you’ll want a stash of your high-quality EU goods, too. Start with olive oil, pepper, pasta and rice. For flavour, you’ll want spices, chilli and herbs, anchovies and tomato (paste, tinned and passata).
Then you need bulk and protein: canned and dried pulses (kidney beans, butter beans, black beans, chickpeas) and tinned fish (sardines and tuna). Add to that tinned olives, pickled capers and jarred peppers, and you’ve basically got a cheat’s Ottolenghi.
The good news is that, while Britain doesn’t produce enough of the fresh produce it needs, it certainly can. As farmers Jane Baxter and Guy Watson pointed out the last time there was a scare, this country grows wonderful stuff – and you don’t need a field to start. So, while you’re stockpiling canned goods, buy a stash of seed packets, too.
If I were you, I'd buy a rifle. You'll be able to shoot squirrels, badger, and deer, once the EU's economic sanctions really start to bite.
If we had to do entirely without EU foods I would miss some better French cheeses from Savoie, the best Spanish ham (e.g. pata negra de bellota), top notch Italian red wine.
Everything else, literally everything, could be sourced at home or from the White Commonwealth. Often more cheaply.
This is an utterly stupid discussion as food imports from the EU won't stop.
However, as we're talking stupid hypotheticals. I would miss: Charlarois beef, Danish butter, French pate, brandy, fois gras and cheese, Spanish Rioja and olive oil.
(Olive oil would actually be one of the toughest to replace, as Spain, Greece and Italy dominate world production.)
Strange that Varadker is being a lot more bullish than Barnier. Does he know something we don't? I'm not sure about the legality of flying rights if there's no deal but tying it to fishing access seems insane.
Could I recommend to you a film called the Gatekeepers? I don't think it'll change your view at all, but I do think it provides a really interesting background. (You may of course have already seen it)
I have seen it. It is very good. I don't really have a view on the Israel-Palestine conflict, other than it maybe insoluble for several generations and that it's an ugly business on all sides that doesn't do wonders for anyone's humanity. Which is why I object to the naive 'Israel bad, poor Palestine' narrative that's constantly pushed - especially when it claims something that's obviously untrue in terms of causation - whatever you think of Likud and Netanyahu's policies, and I think he's appalling, they demonstrably didn't cause the rise of Hamas - who surged to power at a time when Sharon and Olmert were withdrawing from the OT.
I dislike the 'Israel bad, poor Palestine' narrative too. It's simply wrong, and completely so. However as in that film there is a degree to which Israeli's recognise that they've been at fault in managing their relations with their neighbours.
Oh I agree. As I said, I don;t think it does wonders for anyone's humanity. There's no question you'd do things totally differently. That's part of the tragedy of the film - you've got an initial understandable fear of destruction and desire for security that eventually has developed into a vicious cycle of fear and fury that perpetuates itself. Fear of attack spawns hardline measures, which in turn mean more resentment and attacks, which results in hardening of opinion and tougher measures and so on...
Errrr: Corrib is a pretty big gas field, and will supply 60% of Ireland's needs. Indeed, I understand that they may need to reverse the pipeline to the UK, at least temporarily.
The Irish economy would be annihilated by a collapse in trade with the UK. Almost half of non-foreign-owned Irish exports go to the UK.
They're fucked without our market, and they know it. Which is why this silly Anglophobic rhetoric from Varadkar is so nuts. It will harden British hearts. Few in the UK wish harm to Ireland, we are cousins and neighbours. Friends. Yet they are acting like enemies, spurred on by an EU Commission which will dump all over Dublin as soon as Britain leaves, e.g. by harmonising corporate tax rates.
The Irish reaction to Brexit has been like A C Grayling turned into an entire nation: a mixture of self-harming rage, petulant bewilderment, and infantile sneering.
I completely agree with you.
As I said in my video, Ireland (and Northern Ireland) would be most harmed by a No Deal scenario.
I was just pointing out that Brexit coincides with the largest offshore gas field for ages coming on stream. In Ireland. And therefore the argument that stopping the flow of our* natural gas will bring the Republic to its knees is rubbish.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
Or takes their money out of the bank - remember the savings protection limit?
How is that in play? I appreciate it's an EU aligned protection but wouldn't the government just continue the guarantee?
When people become worried, they don’t necessarily act rationally.
Would you trust this government to guarantee your savings?
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
While you can, for example, source British-produced flour, oats, sugar (from beets), salt (by Maldon, for example), vinegar (apple cider, say, as opposed to balsamic), mustard (although the Colman’s factory in Norwich is closing next year), Marmite (the Burton upon Trent factory isn’t going anywhere but, frankly, who can risk a run on their supplies?), lentils and more, you’ll want a stash of your high-quality EU goods, too. Start with olive oil, pepper, pasta and rice. For flavour, you’ll want spices, chilli and herbs, anchovies and tomato (paste, tinned and passata).
Then you need bulk and protein: canned and dried pulses (kidney beans, butter beans, black beans, chickpeas) and tinned fish (sardines and tuna). Add to that tinned olives, pickled capers and jarred peppers, and you’ve basically got a cheat’s Ottolenghi.
The good news is that, while Britain doesn’t produce enough of the fresh produce it needs, it certainly can. As farmers Jane Baxter and Guy Watson pointed out the last time there was a scare, this country grows wonderful stuff – and you don’t need a field to start. So, while you’re stockpiling canned goods, buy a stash of seed packets, too.
If I were you, I'd buy a rifle. You'll be able to shoot squirrels, badger, and deer, once the EU's economic sanctions really start to bite.
If we had to do entirely without EU foods I would miss some better French cheeses from Savoie, the best Spanish ham (e.g. pata negra de bellota), top notch Italian red wine.
Everything else, literally everything, could be sourced at home or from the White Commonwealth. Often more cheaply.
Oh cripes. We've returned to the doomed days of Gordon Brown, PB's 'Gabble' and his English olives.
I doubt all flights will stop in the case of "No Deal"but equally it won't be an arrangement by default. It is much more likely to be a humiliating set of of case by case decisions which will be made every time on the EU's perceived interest. No deal is not a sustainable outcome. The EU will put pressure on us to get us back to the table. It won't be pretty.
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
If I were you, I'd buy a rifle. You'll be able to shoot squirrels, badger, and deer, once the EU's economic sanctions really start to bite.
If we had to do entirely without EU foods I would miss some better French cheeses from Savoie, the best Spanish ham (e.g. pata negra de bellota), top notch Italian red wine.
Everything else, literally everything, could be sourced at home or from the White Commonwealth. Often more cheaply.
This is an utterly stupid discussion as food imports from the EU won't stop.
However, as we're talking stupid hypotheticals. I would miss: Charlarois beef, Danish butter, French pate, brandy, fois gras and cheese, Spanish Rioja and olive oil.
(Olive oil would actually be one of the toughest to replace, as Spain, Greece and Italy dominate world production.)
This is the one thing that I disagreed with you in your video. Yes the average tariff may be 2% and I would accept that if the range was 0% to 4% to create the average (rough calc but illustrates my point).
But they are not the range is 0% to 160%. The issue with food it is one area the EU protects and so there are high tariffs. processed food 35%is. Dairy 40%, beef 60 to 80%. Olive oil 35% and the list goes on. With that level of tariff I can not believe that EU food sales will be unaffected, in fact over time I believe they will drop to zero. The EU knows the exact level of tariff to stop RoW imports of food. Apply them in reverse and the only conclusion I can come to is they would have the same effect on EU exports to the UK.
Edit on Olive Oil the EU tariffs for olive is 0% but for processed oil 35%. Italy, Spain import olives from North Africa, process them and sell it as Italian and Spanish olive oil. We could either buy the olives or the oil to replace.
Strange that Varadker is being a lot more bullish than Barnier. Does he know something we don't? I'm not sure about the legality of flying rights if there's no deal but tying it to fishing access seems insane.
Forget whether you are a Leaver or Remainer, it's the stuff he said about the border that is the most ridiculous/delusional (take your pick). Essentially the EU is saying officially that the issue of the Irish border is arguably the major stumbling block in producing any negotiated deal, and could be the main factor in resulting in a no deal outcome. (the UK are happy with some sort of fudged outcome that avoids the need for physical border apparatus). But Varadkhar is saying that he has been "assured" by the EU that if no deal is reached then there will be no need to enforce physical border checks. So the EU are apparently asserting that a Deal must include a solution to avoiding a hard border, whilst saying to Varadkhar that no deal allows for such a solution!
Is the government really going to be sending out the 'Brexit Survival Handbook' to every household? It will have to be phrased carefully - we don't want a dangerous rush as everyone panic buys petrol and tinned food.
If I were you, I'd buy a rifle. You'll be able to shoot squirrels, badger, and deer, once the EU's economic sanctions really start to bite.
If we had to do entirely without EU foods I would miss some better French cheeses from Savoie, the best Spanish ham (e.g. pata negra de bellota), top notch Italian red wine.
Everything else, literally everything, could be sourced at home or from the White Commonwealth. Often more cheaply.
This is an utterly stupid discussion as food imports from the EU won't stop.
However, as we're talking stupid hypotheticals. I would miss: Charlarois beef, Danish butter, French pate, brandy, fois gras and cheese, Spanish Rioja and olive oil.
(Olive oil would actually be one of the toughest to replace, as Spain, Greece and Italy dominate world production.)
This is the one thing that I disagreed with you in your video. Yes the average tariff may be 2% and I would accept that if the range was 0% to 4% to create the average (rough calc but illustrates my point).
But they are not the range is 0% to 160%. The issue with food it is one area the EU protects and so there are high tariffs. processed food 35%is. Dairy 40%, beef 60 to 80%. Olive oil 35% and the list goes on. With that level of tariff I can not believe that EU food sales will be unaffected, in fact over time I believe they will drop to zero. The EU knows the exact level of tariff to stop RoW imports of food. Apply them in reverse and the only conclusion I can come to is they would have the same effect on EU exports to the UK.
Don't worry, I'm sure Sturgeon will do her bit to stick it to the UK.
I'm sure she can find plenty of gas and shale oil, after all, while she has told all and sundry that she had banned fracking, she forgot to tell the SG legal team...
Comments
One thing I am 100% certain on is that aviation will not stop to and from the UK even in the event of a no deal Brexit.
Seeing Remainers claim otherwise makes me wonder just how much of their other claims are cods-wallop.
What is not fine is the police giving advance notice of a raid or charge to the press before the individual is informed and the BBC treating the raid/charging process as some sort of entertainment. IMO the police were at least as much at fault as the BBC.
A few years ago I was told by a senior member of the City of London Police that one of the metrics on which senior detectives were judged was how often they got their cases into the press. Dangerous: this risks contaminating and prejudicing the investigative process.
Pause.
Ah, my coat...
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cliff-richard-v-bbc-judgment.pdf
I agree that whole treatment of the case was very gravely misjudged by the BBC.
Sir Cliff's got over 600k for this outrage.
These are acts of war (well maybe less so some of them) you cannot go to war with people and commit war like actions and then accuse the other side of being the problem and the reason there is no peace.
Hamas would have to kill off all the Palestinians and give up all the land to Israel to achieve peace, which admittedly they will not do, so yes I suppose they do share some of the blame.
Until Israel stops committing acts of war on Palestine talking about wanting peace is a vile lie designed to justify their continued war.
If a foreign country did to the UK what Israel does to Palestine it would be war, nobody would buy any excuses about wanting peace as they continued to steal UK land and kill UK citizens whilst blocking goods from coming in.
I suppose there is a disclaimer, I do buy the idea they want peace, in much the same way almost any aggressive nation in a conflict would rather their opponents didn't fight back. What they have clearly proven is that peace isn't more important than continuing to do what they want. Given the inability of the Palestinians to provide any serious level of fightback, huge support and funding from the USA and most of the rest of the world not really caring it is probably a sensible calculation, morality aside.
Also Israel equals the government, there are individuals within Israel who genuinely do want peace and don't approve of their continued war with the Palestinians
OK sure, "will be" can be replaced by "i think will be"
Reminded me of the fast show.
Ron manager jumpers for goal posts.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-aviation-safety.pdf
Says that (among other things like planes and pilots) British ATC will no longer be licensed in the event of no deal, so yes they’d be shutting down a huge chunk of airspace in the North Atlantic.
As others have said, if no deal is agreed on anything else then I’m sure some mighty fudge will be applied to aviation.
Re the Leeson analogy: what was the “first mistake”? And what is the “doubling down”?
Treating the result of a democratic vote as the same as a dishonest fraud is a category mistake. The EU may think we’re wrong to do this. Plenty of people in Britain do. But they would do better to try and understand why their vision of the future has been rejected by a country after 4 decades of experience of it and try and come up with some alternative view of what the British-European relationship should be. Or they can blockade us. I would only politely suggest that doing that is silly and not in their interests.
I’m not sure I agree with the “lawless” point. Aren’t we incorporating all EU law into our own so that it effectively vecomes British law?
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/1019632894552264708
Carroll was signed because Torres was sold. You wanted Suarez regardless.
Carroll was a terrible deal for the money. Although you did get great money for Torres. I don't think you can really call it a great deal by adding Suarez in with it because the only connection is they were signed at similar times, Suarez was a great deal though.
The best argument for Carroll is that you had Carroll + £15M instead of Torres, who went a bit crap at that point.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1019676727231107076?s=21
As for the lawless bit the ERG lot may put the kibosh on that.
I too have heard Indians be pretty blunt about Pakistan and Muslims. Frankly, some of it needs saying. Pakistan is utterly two faced in its approach to Islamist ideology and terrorism.
Then you need bulk and protein: canned and dried pulses (kidney beans, butter beans, black beans, chickpeas) and tinned fish (sardines and tuna). Add to that tinned olives, pickled capers and jarred peppers, and you’ve basically got a cheat’s Ottolenghi.
The good news is that, while Britain doesn’t produce enough of the fresh produce it needs, it certainly can. As farmers Jane Baxter and Guy Watson pointed out the last time there was a scare, this country grows wonderful stuff – and you don’t need a field to start. So, while you’re stockpiling canned goods, buy a stash of seed packets, too.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2018/jul/12/a-no-deal-brexit-survival-guide-what-food-to-stockpile
Another thing they’ve not realised, according to posters on a pilots’ forum on the subject, is that around 50% of EASA’s own regulatory staff are British.
The logic behind the Israel have a partial excuse because Hamas are extreme it is also terrible flawed, Hamas came to power for quite a few reasons, corruption being one of them, they also offer basic aid to people in need, but one of the main reasons is the terrible state the Palestinians are forced to live in by Israel makes them more extreme. You aren't likely to get the Lib Dems spring up and take over as the governing force in an open prison. Stating that because of the open prison conditions the people seem quite extreme so we must continue or double down sounds like a strategy doomed to failure. Hamas took over in Gaza it seems to produce the opposite result.
You aren't going to blow up, starve or imprison the Palestinians into moderation. All evidence suggests that the Israeli strategy produces ever move extreme results. So I can only assume the people who advocate the opposition being too extreme so Israel have some cover don't understand this or actually want to give the Israelis cover to continue to do whatever they wish to the Palestinians.
Or takes their money out of the bank - remember the savings protection limit?
https://twitter.com/cstalfordmla/status/1019672905662246918?s=21
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/worldcup/gareth-southgate-station-video-of-woman-tearing-down-tube-sign-sparks-outrage-a3890376.html?amp
No Deal is a threat we're making to blockade ourselves. It's not credible of course, but they have to prepare for it.
The Northern Line extension has "Transport for London" as the borrower, and any court would side with the EIB, I suspect.
[Sunil says, twitiching nervously
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1019644732736180226
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1019700756763627520
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1019701103536033796
However, as we're talking stupid hypotheticals. I would miss: Charlarois beef, Danish butter, French pate, brandy, fois gras and cheese, Spanish Rioja and olive oil.
(Olive oil would actually be one of the toughest to replace, as Spain, Greece and Italy dominate world production.)
As I said in my video, Ireland (and Northern Ireland) would be most harmed by a No Deal scenario.
I was just pointing out that Brexit coincides with the largest offshore gas field for ages coming on stream. In Ireland. And therefore the argument that stopping the flow of our* natural gas will bring the Republic to its knees is rubbish.
* Technically the Norwegians
Would you trust this government to guarantee your savings?
https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1019601343101767680
Looking for silver lining.
But they are not the range is 0% to 160%. The issue with food it is one area the EU protects and so there are high tariffs. processed food 35%is. Dairy 40%, beef 60 to 80%. Olive oil 35% and the list goes on.
With that level of tariff I can not believe that EU food sales will be unaffected, in fact over time I believe they will drop to zero.
The EU knows the exact level of tariff to stop RoW imports of food. Apply them in reverse and the only conclusion I can come to is they would have the same effect on EU exports to the UK.
Edit on Olive Oil the EU tariffs for olive is 0% but for processed oil 35%. Italy, Spain import olives from North Africa, process them and sell it as Italian and Spanish olive oil. We could either buy the olives or the oil to replace.