King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
I think that is a silly way to look at it. We have always been clear that we will not use EU citizens as pawns in the negotiations. It is the correct and moral stance. The EU does not feel the same. Well, what did we expect?
But our moral superiority is more than a bit self interested. The 3-4m EU citizens here make a significant contribution to our economy. Some have already left and I am sure that the government does not want that to become a trend. Hence the announcement.
We want the nurses to stay, but they are leaving. We’re not bothered about the car-washers and they are staying. Or so it seems.
Trained nurses can find work at a reasonable salary anywhere. Car washers can't.
Car washers can find work anywhere but not at a reasonable salary!
That was my point. They need to find a way to earn money at a rate that will keep them comfortably in their own country. They can do that in the UK and that's why they won't leave unless they absolutely have to.
Edit - or there's a major economic collapse that wrecks the economic model they're using, of course.
Remove the right to receive in-work benefits and tax credits from car washers and the hand car wash industry would disappear. How any business can employ three or four guys to clean cars all day for a tenner a time defies all logic. The only explanation I can think of is that the cleaners are set up as self employed working long hours and having a shit salary topped up by tax credits...probably greater than the salary itself.
I suspect that a lot of the car washers are not even here legally, coming from non-EU countries and being abused and underpaid by their employers. The supermarkets who enable this should be looked at very carefully by government.
I misread that as 'supermarkets should be locked up very carefully by the government.'
Worryingly, it made good sense...
LOL. But the serious point is that I want to see Tesco held accountable for making sure every car washer in their car park is both in the country legally and being paid the minimum wage. With fines as a percentage of their turnover, doubling each time for subsequent offences.
The sums just don't add up, if you're paying a fiver for half a man hour of labour there's no way it's being done legally.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
I wonder why we're not seeing adverts for aid appeals for Venezuela?
I wouldn't send money to Venezuela. It would only end up in Maduro's pocket.
Hugo Chavez impoverished his nation, yet when he died he had assets of US$1 billion. His daughters are rumoured to have $10 billion between them.
Maduro is if anything worse.
I'm a great believer in tiny gestures of decency (mostly because I'm not capable of anything else) & any contributions to this guy would go nowhere near Maduro I think. Of course if you don't like cats I apologise, but there's certainly an insight to the larger crisis on his twitter feed.
Apparently the inflation rate in Venezuela now tops 61,000%. They've knocked off five zeroes from the currency.
It can't be far from absolute collapse. Poverty's rampant, inflation means you should buy food at dawn because it'll have reduced your spending power significantly by dusk, unemployment's vast, people are shedding weight because they're starving, the democratic process is a sham, and there's an exodus caused by people desperately seeking food, work, and safety elsewhere.
And neighbouring countries are closing their borders to those trying to flee. So now Venezuelans are trapped in a country in appalling conditions, starving, lacking medicines and facing violence from those with power over them.
I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be protesting about this. I am sure I read somewhere that he is very concerned when desperate people are put in such a dreadful situation.
It's all the west's fault, dontchaknow? Tbey realised Chavez's policies would lead to a socialist paradise and therefore destroyed it before it could be challenge the corrupt capitalist orthodoxy. The west sbould pay reparations immediately.
¡Viva la revolución! When will the leader of the Labour Party Wolfie Smith and shadow chancellor Dave Spart comment on the unfolding catastrophe in Venezuela?
I mean I haven't even seen plans for registration. Have I missed it?
And how long do we think those 3m will be given to show their papers? One year? Two?
Until then, until the last EU citizen has been registered then anyone who comes here effectively has complete freedom to stay, etc.
I assumed we would be relying upon computerised records of their passport entry and exit to establish their right of residence. Anything else would indeed be overwhelming in the time we have left.
It’s entirely feasible there are EU citizens in the UK who haven’t left the country in decades (cf Windrush). What about them?
Don't know is the honest answer but presumably there will have to be a process where they can show that and get a card entitling them to benefits, NHS etc. Many may well apply for UK citizenship because, after all, this is their home.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
Not ordinarily, no. You as a Leaver, Nick P as a Labour/Jezza fan. I wouldn't otherwise waste my time trying to make you see the light.
But we are on a political website so that's what we discuss.
Lol, thank you kind sir.
I've never thought it's worth the electrons to try to change minds here (has anyone, ever, changed their position on party support or Brexit as a result of pondering a PB post?) - what's interesting is the areas where we find we agree (or at least are willing to discuss) despite different underlying positions. There are not many sites where people are willing to discuss on that basis, and for me that is PB's central appeal. If we all suddenly became Remainers or Leavers or Boris fans or Corbynites it'd be a bit boring.
We even had a generally good-natured (and excellently written) thread from @David_Herdson the other day on Israel and Palestine, something that is very rare on an Internet forum anywhere.
We all have our views, but the most important thing is to respect each other and be willing to discuss differences of opinion in a civil manner.
I wonder why we're not seeing adverts for aid appeals for Venezuela?
I wouldn't send money to Venezuela. It would only end up in Maduro's pocket.
Hugo Chavez impoverished his nation, yet when he died he had assets of US$1 billion. His daughters are rumoured to have $10 billion between them.
Maduro is if anything worse.
I'm a great believer in tiny gestures of decency (mostly because I'm not capable of anything else) & any contributions to this guy would go nowhere near Maduro I think. Of course if you don't like cats I apologise, but there's certainly an insight to the larger crisis on his twitter feed.
I wonder why we're not seeing adverts for aid appeals for Venezuela?
I wouldn't send money to Venezuela. It would only end up in Maduro's pocket.
Hugo Chavez impoverished his nation, yet when he died he had assets of US$1 billion. His daughters are rumoured to have $10 billion between them.
Maduro is if anything worse.
I'm a great believer in tiny gestures of decency (mostly because I'm not capable of anything else) & any contributions to this guy would go nowhere near Maduro I think. Of course if you don't like cats I apologise, but there's certainly an insight to the larger crisis on his twitter feed.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
I wonder why we're not seeing adverts for aid appeals for Venezuela?
I wouldn't send money to Venezuela. It would only end up in Maduro's pocket.
Hugo Chavez impoverished his nation, yet when he died he had assets of US$1 billion. His daughters are rumoured to have $10 billion between them.
Maduro is if anything worse.
I'm a great believer in tiny gestures of decency (mostly because I'm not capable of anything else) & any contributions to this guy would go nowhere near Maduro I think. Of course if you don't like cats I apologise, but there's certainly an insight to the larger crisis on his twitter feed.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
Pure ad hom.
Not ad vulcanum?
Do you disagree with the end of that quote? "If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
¡Viva la revolución! When will the leader of the Labour Party Wolfie Smith and shadow chancellor Dave Spart comment on the unfolding catastrophe in Venezuela?
If Wolfie does comment he'd probably blame the whole mess on American sanctions. You do know there are American sanctions in place? For electoral purposes, GE2017 firmly established that despite Britain being led by an Oxford geography scholar, not a single voter can even find Venezuela on a map, let alone have it decide where to put the X.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
John Redwood is labouring under the misapprehension that £39 billion is paid up front on day 1.
It is spread over several years.
So it’ll contribute bugger all in tax cuts/spending the day we Leave.
Mr. Doethur, is that the parable of the poor woman who gives two coppers and the wealthy man who gives a talent, but the woman's is the greater because she's made a sacrifice (showing devotion) by giving all she can, whereas the man has merely made a contribution he can easily afford?
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
Question: which politician makes you laugh loudest at their attempt to sing the Welsh national anthem?
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
Question: which politician makes you laugh loudest at their attempt to sing the Welsh national anthem?
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
Question: which politician makes you laugh loudest at their attempt to sing the Welsh national anthem?
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
John Redwood is labouring under the misapprehension that £39 billion is paid up front on day 1.
It is spread over several years.
So it’ll contribute bugger all in tax cuts/spending the day we Leave.
He's also under the misapprehension that it is in the main payment of money not otherwise due. A fair bit of the £39bn will have become due and been paid by 31st March next year. Beyond that there are many projects that we had committed ourselves to, some of which we want to remain in after Brexit. Like the Lannisters Britain pays its debts. Like the Lannisters this is a long term investment which reaps rich rewards.
I was a bit rude earlier to @Scott_P and I apologise. I agree with him that our government has made a complete mess of the negotiations and I strongly agree that a deal is better than no deal, even Chequers. People going around claiming no deal = £39bn for us with no downsides are indeed deluding themselves.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
Pure ad hom.
Not ad vulcanum?
Do you disagree with the end of that quote? "If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
We are not serious about leaving with no deal because that would not be the action of a serious government with the well-being of the nation uppermost in its mind.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
I may well be biased, but I don't find that very convincing at all.
The UK economy is larger than £2,000 billion per year; the extra £39 billion that would have been paid "over a number of years" would be under 1% if the number of years was just 2, and even smaller if longer than that. It would be a surprise for it to be that major a boost as to overcome the issues of sudden imposition of friction of trade alone.
He talks much about tariffs (which would suit us) and signing trade agreements around the world (when? Most take several years to negotiate at best, during which time we're worse off; that £39 billion is doing a lot of work, here).
There's not a single word about Non-Tariff Barriers, which are the most difficult part and the part feared to cause the long queues at ports and potential shortfalls, and is far bigger a deal than tariffs. LeaveHQ has a great post on it here: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128 - which is highly recommended reading for anyone on either side who is concerned about the issue.
I wonder why we're not seeing adverts for aid appeals for Venezuela?
I wouldn't send money to Venezuela. It would only end up in Maduro's pocket.
Hugo Chavez impoverished his nation, yet when he died he had assets of US$1 billion. His daughters are rumoured to have $10 billion between them.
Maduro is if anything worse.
I'm a great believer in tiny gestures of decency (mostly because I'm not capable of anything else) & any contributions to this guy would go nowhere near Maduro I think. Of course if you don't like cats I apologise, but there's certainly an insight to the larger crisis on his twitter feed.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
John Redwood is labouring under the misapprehension that £39 billion is paid up front on day 1.
It is spread over several years.
So it’ll contribute bugger all in tax cuts/spending the day we Leave.
No, you're labouring under the misapprehension that government spending plans are set out over a single year alone. Typically it's a three year period.
I think Redwood actually undersells the WTO case by failing to add to the £39bn the annual windfall the UK would receive from tariffs levied on the EU's exports. There is a net windfall to the UK as EU would levy far less on our exports to them, simply because the imbalance in the volume of trade is already so great.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
At one time I was a reasonably devout Christian, but then started having doubts. Those doubts accumulated until they swept my faith away, and now I’m a happy atheist, with everything rationalised.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
Mr. Doethur, I remember reading that when Arafat died the total of his estate exceeded the GDP of Palestinian territories.
One little noticed aspect of Corbyn’s meetings with various Palestinians and attendance at their conferences is this: if any of the individuals are subject to UK/EU or UN sanctions (and some have been) then, depending on the nature of the association - and this will very much depend on the facts - there may be breaches of those sanctions and/or matters which are reportable under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
It is a truism that one must take the greatest possible care when dealing with and/or receiving any form of hospitality or benefits-in-kind from people or organisations with chequered / criminal pasts. This applies to politicians, even well-meaning, naive ones, as it does to banks or anyone, frankly. And if any funding has been received from such sources, well ..... you could be in big trouble. Legally if not politically.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
The UK economy is larger than £2,000 billion per year; the extra £39 billion that would have been paid "over a number of years" would be under 1% if the number of years was just 2, and even smaller if longer than that. It would be a surprise for it to be that major a boost as to overcome the issues of sudden imposition of friction of trade alone.
He talks much about tariffs (which would suit us) and signing trade agreements around the world (when? Most take several years to negotiate at best, during which time we're worse off; that £39 billion is doing a lot of work, here).
There's not a single word about Non-Tariff Barriers, which are the most difficult part and the part feared to cause the long queues at ports and potential shortfalls, and is far bigger a deal than tariffs. LeaveHQ has a great post on it here: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128 - which is highly recommended reading for anyone on either side who is concerned about the issue.
I love that the same people who say £39 billion is a tiny, tiny amount that we won't notice the benefit of are the same people who scream that £350m a week on the side of a bus is an insane amount of money that could never, ever be found under any circumstances.
Miss Cyclefree, there have been comments made about the nature of the payment/declaration of Corbyn's sojourn in Tunisia. We'll see if that leads anywhere.
There's not a single word about Non-Tariff Barriers, which are the most difficult part and the part feared to cause the long queues at ports and potential shortfalls, and is far bigger a deal than tariffs. LeaveHQ has a great post on it here: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128 - which is highly recommended reading for anyone on either side who is concerned about the issue.
If you read his subsequent article, you'll find there are a lot of words about Non-Tariff Barriers and the EU's obligation to stick to its international agreements on them:
"the EU has built World Trade rules into its own legal structures. The WTO, for example, has a Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement to deal with just such issues, and a Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement for agriculture. These require a WTO state to accept product from another WTO state as complying with standards unless there is an objective reason to establish they do not comply. The EU has and uses powers to recognise the standards and competent authorities of third countries to be able to import their goods and to comply with its WTO obligations. So hear this all you Project Fearmongers. The EU is a legal construct which also has to live by the rule of international law. Under WTO rules non tariff barriers have been dealt with, so the EU cannot legally mount a Napoleonic blockade against UK goods once we have left. After all, the day following our departure UK produce and products still meet all existing EU standards. I still find it odd that those who most love the EU think the EU would want to try to do this. It would also, of course, be a violation of the EU Treaties themselves which require the EU to develop positive relationships with neighbouring states and to promote trade with them. The WTO has done good work in recent years to make it illegal for countries to impose new non tariff barriers to impede trade. The EU has built these requirements into its own law codes. People on both sides of the Channel will continue to honour contracts and buy and sell to each other after our exit. To suggest otherwise is silly scaremongering."
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How would this supernatural being prove they are what is claimed about them?
Turning up saying 'I am God' isn't proof of anything.
Given that - as far as I am concerned - all gods are the creation of people seeking explanations, I find it beyond the realm of the possible for a thought experiment to come to life.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
Pure ad hom.
Not ad vulcanum?
Do you disagree with the end of that quote? "If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
We are not serious about leaving with no deal because that would not be the action of a serious government with the well-being of the nation uppermost in its mind.
The EU likes to give the impression that it is very serious about the UK leaving with no deal.
The rehabilitation that Hodge has received from the right is heartening. Just imagine if it had come out that her daughter was a BBC news producer when this article was written.
'Margaret Hodge’s foul hypocrisy just beggars belief says STEPHEN POLLARD'
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
Pure ad hom.
Not ad vulcanum?
Do you disagree with the end of that quote? "If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
We are not serious about leaving with no deal because that would not be the action of a serious government with the well-being of the nation uppermost in its mind.
I have mentioned before that "no deal" is one of the many meaningless phrases flung about in this debate (hard and soft Brexits are others). We want a comprehensive, overarching deal with the EU which regulates trade, investment, mutual recognition of laws and standards for a reasonable period of time.
But even if we don't get that deal we absolutely need deals to ensure planes can fly, trucks can drive, people can continue to reside, medicines are mutually recognised etc etc. In short, "no deal" really means lots of little deals but without the overall architecture. The idea that we can walk away from the EU with no deals at all is absurd but the government should have been addressing the possible implications of the lack of a global deal from the very start. Failure to do so weakened our position and, in my view, weakened the prospects of such a deal.
"Do you disagree with the end of that quote? If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public"
I think to ask whether one agrees on whether threatening someone to harm yourself even more will help them to see your point of view. There may be a few headbangers who believe there are benefits to "No Deal" but they need to know that those on the EU side know that the balance of evidence does not support this view. In order for such a strategy to have any negotiating leverage we are therefore dependant on the EU feeling sorry for our stupidity (not very likely), or fearful of the instability that we will cause through our petulant behaviour. The latter may work, but it is not a very mature or dignified way to carry out international relationships. The referendum has made us an international laughing stock. We look childish and pathetic. These are the results of faux patriotism and nationalism folks. Thanks Boris.
Miss Cyclefree, there have been comments made about the nature of the payment/declaration of Corbyn's sojourn in Tunisia. We'll see if that leads anywhere.
That just deals with declaration in the Parliamentary Register of Interests. What I have raised concerns the possibility of breaches of the criminal law, possibly inadvertently, or sanctions. You can find matters reported under POCA even when the person concerned did not realise that the funds may have come from the proceeds of crime.
If Corbyn’s office has been as sloppy over funding as the man himself has been over whom he shares platforms with, I would not rule out the possibility. I suspect the authorities already know and that the intelligence thus gathered will be in a large file somewhere.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large enk the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
Pure ad hom.
Not ad vulcanum?
Do you disagree with the end of that quote? "If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
We are not serious about leaving with no deal because that would not be the action of a serious government with the well-being of the nation uppermost in its mind.
The EU likes to give the impression that it is very serious about the UK leaving with no deal.
Of course it does. And we will cave because we can't take the chance that they will take any of their many treaties and protocols and agreements seriously.
As @Nigel_Foremain notes, entering into negotiations that rely on your opponent feeling sorry for you might not be hopeless, but it is certainly not what one would call a strong position.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
O/t, but this year’s funniest joke at the Edinburgh Fringe is
"Working at the Jobcentre has to be a tense job - knowing that if you get fired, you still have to come in the next day.”
Actually, I’m sure I’ve heard it before!
And we have had a month of this..... honestly, help.
Personally I thought this one was funnier "I took out a loan to pay for an exorcism. If I don't pay it back, I'm going to get repossessed"
There has been a slightly imaginative campaign to discourage littering.
Bins have been covered in really bad jokes, such as what did the buffalo say to his son when he went off to school? Bison. The promise is that if tourists bin their rubbish the authority will bin the jokes.
Not ordinarily, no. You as a Leaver, Nick P as a Labour/Jezza fan. I wouldn't otherwise waste my time trying to make you see the light.
But we are on a political website so that's what we discuss.
Lol, thank you kind sir.
I've never thought it's worth the electrons to try to change minds here (has anyone, ever, changed their position on party support or Brexit as a result of pondering a PB post?) - what's interesting is the areas where we find we agree (or at least are willing to discuss) despite different underlying positions. There are not many sites where people are willing to discuss on that basis, and for me that is PB's central appeal. If we all suddenly became Remainers or Leavers or Boris fans or Corbynites it'd be a bit boring.
I am definitely influenced by what I have learnedhere and my mind has been changed. My vote usually secure is more vulnerable than ever. It is not impossible that the cult might push me into actively opposing them.
I wonder why we're not seeing adverts for aid appeals for Venezuela?
I wouldn't send money to Venezuela. It would only end up in Maduro's pocket.
Hugo Chavez impoverished his nation, yet when he died he had assets of US$1 billion. His daughters are rumoured to have $10 billion between them.
Maduro is if anything worse.
I'm a great believer in tiny gestures of decency (mostly because I'm not capable of anything else) & any contributions to this guy would go nowhere near Maduro I think. Of course if you don't like cats I apologise, but there's certainly an insight to the larger crisis on his twitter feed.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Rolling back a tsunami?
What about getting United playing exciting football again? That would be a true miracle.
Apparently the inflation rate in Venezuela now tops 61,000%. They've knocked off five zeroes from the currency.
It can't be far from absolute collapse. Poverty's rampant, inflation means you should buy food at dawn because it'll have reduced your spending power significantly by dusk, unemployment's vast, people are shedding weight because they're starving, the democratic process is a sham, and there's an exodus caused by people desperately seeking food, work, and safety elsewhere.
Is Venezuela using CPI or RPI to measure their 61,000% inflation rate?
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Rolling back a tsunami?
What about getting United playing exciting football again? That would be a true miracle.
Stopping William Glenn from obsessing about a second referendum?
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Rolling back a tsunami?
What about getting United playing exciting football again? That would be a true miracle.
Stopping William Glenn from obsessing about a second referendum?
That would stretch the concept of omnipotence to its very limits but I am not sure it would convince those foolish enough not to spend their time on PB.
Apparently the inflation rate in Venezuela now tops 61,000%. They've knocked off five zeroes from the currency.
It can't be far from absolute collapse. Poverty's rampant, inflation means you should buy food at dawn because it'll have reduced your spending power significantly by dusk, unemployment's vast, people are shedding weight because they're starving, the democratic process is a sham, and there's an exodus caused by people desperately seeking food, work, and safety elsewhere.
Is Venezuela using CPI or RPI to measure their 61,000% inflation rate?
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Rolling back a tsunami?
What about getting United playing exciting football again? That would be a true miracle.
Dundee United? Such a level of omnipotence cannot be comprehended.
(Can't remember if you're an Arab or a Dee supporter)
He talks much about tariffs (which would suit us) and signing trade agreements around the world (when? Most take several years to negotiate at best, during which time we're worse off; that £39 billion is doing a lot of work, here).
There's not a single word about Non-Tariff Barriers, which are the most difficult part and the part feared to cause the long queues at ports and potential shortfalls, and is far bigger a deal than tariffs. LeaveHQ has a great post on it here: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128 - which is highly recommended reading for anyone on either side who is concerned about the issue.
I do not know who Pete North is but I disagree with his article. He is correct about NTB's being an issue, but his example is that if we leave to WTO then goods will be shipped to the ports and EU customs will check them for conformity to EU rules there and then. This is not how the process works. The process is detailed in depth by the EU and is understood. Currently in the SM, the National agencies all trust each other, so take a car. Today a car made in the SM is taken to a national type approval agency and given a yes or a no for compliance, if a yes then the Manufacturer keeps the paper work in the national country and can ship cars all around the EU. If questioned over compliance by another country it will produce the paperwork. If the Car is made outside the EU then the manufacturer uses a legal entity in the EU to as act as an importer, this entity takes the car to the EU national agency to get type approval, if a yes then the manufacturers legal entity in the EU country keeps the paperwork and then starts to import cars into the EU that can be sold all over the SM. If conformity is questioned then this legal entity of the manufacturer will produce the paperwork to prove. But what does not happen are checks for conformity at the port, unless food, checks of the correct paperwork saying the car conforms, yes. The EU uses this model because the entity that it can take legal action against is within it's legal jurisdiction.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Rolling back a tsunami?
What about getting United playing exciting football again? That would be a true miracle.
Dundee United? Such a level of omnipotence cannot be comprehended.
(Can't remember if you're an Arab or a Dee supporter)
An Arab. And yes, that makes Man U look easy. At least the latter has some players.
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
When John Redwood is the answer you know you're in trouble.
Question: which politician makes you laugh loudest at their attempt to sing the Welsh national anthem?
The UK economy is larger than £2,000 billion per year; the extra £39 billion that would have been paid "over a number of years" would be under 1% if the number of years was just 2, and even smaller if longer than that. It would be a surprise for it to be that major a boost as to overcome the issues of sudden imposition of friction of trade alone.
He talks much about tariffs (which would suit us) and signing trade agreements around the world (when? Most take several years to negotiate at best, during which time we're worse off; that £39 billion is doing a lot of work, here).
There's not a single word about Non-Tariff Barriers, which are the most difficult part and the part feared to cause the long queues at ports and potential shortfalls, and is far bigger a deal than tariffs. LeaveHQ has a great post on it here: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128 - which is highly recommended reading for anyone on either side who is concerned about the issue.
I love that the same people who say £39 billion is a tiny, tiny amount that we won't notice the benefit of are the same people who scream that £350m a week on the side of a bus is an insane amount of money that could never, ever be found under any circumstances.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Rolling back a tsunami?
What about getting United playing exciting football again? That would be a true miracle.
Dundee United? Such a level of omnipotence cannot be comprehended.
(Can't remember if you're an Arab or a Dee supporter)
TUD , David is too genteel for football, cricket , polo and croquet only !
CPAG are a bunch of hacks, and I’ve called them it to their face. I’ve called them out with dodgy figures that they then had to change on their website and I called out their ceo for their bogus use of child poverty figures to present the exact opposite of what the figures showed to will fully mislead.
Do you disagree with the end of that quote? "If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
We are not serious about leaving with no deal because that would not be the action of a serious government with the well-being of the nation uppermost in its mind.
The EU likes to give the impression that it is very serious about the UK leaving with no deal.
Of course it does. And we will cave because we can't take the chance that they will take any of their many treaties and protocols and agreements seriously.
As @Nigel_Foremain notes, entering into negotiations that rely on your opponent feeling sorry for you might not be hopeless, but it is certainly not what one would call a strong position.
I was highlighting your double standards. You regard it as beyond the pale for the UK to contemplate leaving without a deal yet seem sanguine about the EU having offered so hard over the past year that we are on the verge of that very outcome.
In terms of the EU or rather the Commission's position, it is indeed clear that their stance is as you say "not be the action of a serious government with the well-being of the nation uppermost in its mind". The Commission doesn't care that much about the impact on EU states and the little people in Europe working in export industries whose livelihoods are linked to a continuation of UK trade post Brexit. What the Commission cares about is the future of the EU project upon which the livelihoods of those in Brussels depend. And as such it is desperate to ensure that the UK cannot be seen to make a success of Brexit, however much pain the EU has to endure to that end, in case the whole EU project starts to unravel on the back of the UK's example.
The irony is that the UK can make a success of Brexit, even if the Commission refuses to play ball, because of the international agreements the EU is obliged to uphold and the imbalance of EU-UK trade which accounts for nearly all of the UK's current trade deficit. So the Commission is left acting as the Holy Roman Emperor without any clothes, desperate that the Remainers running our government don't see through the weakness of its negotiating position.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Rolling back a tsunami?
What about getting United playing exciting football again? That would be a true miracle.
Dundee United? Such a level of omnipotence cannot be comprehended.
(Can't remember if you're an Arab or a Dee supporter)
TUD , David is too genteel for football, cricket , polo and croquet only !
Polo and croquet are both far more vicious than football or cricket.
Not ordinarily, no. You as a Leaver, Nick P as a Labour/Jezza fan. I wouldn't otherwise waste my time trying to make you see the light.
But we are on a political website so that's what we discuss.
Lol, thank you kind sir.
I've never thought it's worth the electrons to try to change minds here (has anyone, ever, changed their position on party support or Brexit as a result of pondering a PB post?) - what's interesting is the areas where we find we agree (or at least are willing to discuss) despite different underlying positions. There are not many sites where people are willing to discuss on that basis, and for me that is PB's central appeal. If we all suddenly became Remainers or Leavers or Boris fans or Corbynites it'd be a bit boring.
I am definitely influenced by what I have learnedhere and my mind has been changed. My vote usually secure is more vulnerable than ever. It is not impossible that the cult might push me into actively opposing them.
I fluctuated between reluctant leaver and relecutant remained on here many times reading different arguments. Fascinating though, as this is probably one of the more intelligent and informed political forums, not once do I recall the problem of a Northern Ireland boundary popping up,in discussion.
Mr. Evershed, don't know. Though with inflation rates that high it's a bit like a night of passion with a rhinoceros or an elephant. It doesn't really matter, because you're thoroughly ****ed either way.
Of course it does. And we will cave because we can't take the chance that they will take any of their many treaties and protocols and agreements seriously.
As @Nigel_Foremain notes, entering into negotiations that rely on your opponent feeling sorry for you might not be hopeless, but it is certainly not what one would call a strong position.
I was highlighting your double standards. You regard it as beyond the pale for the UK to contemplate leaving without a deal yet seem sanguine about the EU having offered so hard over the past year that we are on the verge of that very outcome.
In terms of the EU or rather the Commission's position, it is indeed clear that their stance is as you say "not be the action of a serious government with the well-being of the nation uppermost in its mind". The Commission doesn't care that much about the impact on EU states and the little people in Europe working in export industries whose livelihoods are linked to a continuation of UK trade post Brexit. What the Commission cares about is the future of the EU project upon which the livelihoods of those in Brussels depend. And as such it is desperate to ensure that the UK cannot be seen to make a success of Brexit, however much pain the EU has to endure to that end, in case the whole EU project starts to unravel on the back of the UK's example.
The irony is that the UK can make a success of Brexit, even if the Commission refuses to play ball, because of the international agreements the EU is obliged to uphold and the imbalance of EU-UK trade which accounts for nearly all of the UK's current trade deficit. So the Commission is left acting as the Holy Roman Emperor without any clothes, desperate that the Remainers running our government don't see through the weakness of its negotiating position.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Rolling back a tsunami?
What about getting United playing exciting football again? That would be a true miracle.
Dundee United? Such a level of omnipotence cannot be comprehended.
(Can't remember if you're an Arab or a Dee supporter)
TUD , David is too genteel for football, cricket , polo and croquet only !
Croquet has not had the same appeal since Prescott took time off from his secretary.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Rolling back a tsunami?
What about getting United playing exciting football again? That would be a true miracle.
Start by getting rid of Mourinho. As my daughter said last night at least United women team played great football and beat Liverpool the same day the mens team found that Mourinho had shattered all their confidence. Why does he destroy so many players.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Rolling back a tsunami?
What about getting United playing exciting football again? That would be a true miracle.
Dundee United? Such a level of omnipotence cannot be comprehended.
(Can't remember if you're an Arab or a Dee supporter)
TUD , David is too genteel for football, cricket , polo and croquet only !
Croquet has not had the same appeal since Prescott took time off from his secretary.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Rolling back a tsunami?
What about getting United playing exciting football again? That would be a true miracle.
Dundee United? Such a level of omnipotence cannot be comprehended.
(Can't remember if you're an Arab or a Dee supporter)
TUD , David is too genteel for football, cricket , polo and croquet only !
Polo and croquet are both far more vicious than football or cricket.
Apparently the inflation rate in Venezuela now tops 61,000%. They've knocked off five zeroes from the currency.
It can't be far from absolute collapse. Poverty's rampant, inflation means you should buy food at dawn because it'll have reduced your spending power significantly by dusk, unemployment's vast, people are shedding weight because they're starving, the democratic process is a sham, and there's an exodus caused by people desperately seeking food, work, and safety elsewhere.
Is Venezuela using CPI or RPI to measure their 61,000% inflation rate?
"Under WTO rules non tariff barriers have been dealt with" - Redwood
If that was true FTAs would be a lot simpler than they are.
The vast bulk of fta are not about tariffs but about equivleence and mutual recognition of standards. All ours at the moment are Single Market compliant. Literally any free trade deal with the EU by other nations already incorporates each other’s equivalence.
Free trade deals with the EU are only as complicated as deep we want them to be. A trade deal with Canada wouldn’t need to be renegotiated between uk, if both sides are happy with the CETA deal it’s a case of substituting uk and EU. All the other stuff is identical.
King Cole, that may, counter-intuitively, be completely wrong.
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
Surely what the former staunch athiest (etc) has done is weigh up the continual small pieces of evidence which come before before him until eventually the crucial appears and he converts. It may seem a “Road to Damascus” event but it isn’t. A journey of 1000 miles etc. Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
As a devout atheist, I can conceive of no evidence that will ever persuade me of the existence of any god - whether than be Zeus or one of the more modern pretenders.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
What if he turned up? I mean, I am an atheist too but that's because I deal with the facts as my limited understanding comprehends them. As a much, much cleverer man once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?"
How could you tell?
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
I am sure that an omnipotent God, if he existed, could think of something.
Comments
When I was at school, my Religious Studies teacher, who was a splendid fellow, suggested it was actually more likely for a staunch atheist (or believer in another religion) to convert than a lazy, disinterested agnostic. The reasoning may be that the believer/atheist has a genuine religious position and thinks about such things (perhaps a lot) whereas the lazy agnostic just doesn't, and doesn't care to.
The sums just don't add up, if you're paying a fiver for half a man hour of labour there's no way it's being done legally.
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2018/08/19/jeremy-hunt-damages-the-uks-negotiating-position/
"Mr Hunt also seems unaware of the large economic upside we will enjoy if we just leave in March 2019 without the impediment of a Withdrawal Agreement delaying us. The UK economy can receive a major boost from spending the £39bn we would otherwise send to the EU on our public spending priorities and tax cuts here in the UK. We will also be able to draw up a tariff schedule more suited to UK needs and strengths, and sign trade agreements with many countries around the world. If we insist on just leaving, the EU is very likely to seek tariff free trade with us. It is only because they think the UK will give more ground in this negotiation that they are hanging tough on the trade issue. Many pro Brexit MPs agree that leaving and trading under WTO arrangements is a good option with plenty of economic upside for the UK. The government still believes there is a better deal available than this. If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
https://twitter.com/reinosoj2
Plato, if you're lurking, get tore in.
When will the leader of the Labour Party Wolfie Smith and shadow chancellor Dave Spart comment on the unfolding catastrophe in Venezuela?
We even had a generally good-natured (and excellently written) thread from @David_Herdson the other day on Israel and Palestine, something that is very rare on an Internet forum anywhere.
We all have our views, but the most important thing is to respect each other and be willing to discuss differences of opinion in a civil manner.
I have no doubt you are capable of big gestures of decency as well.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Sandpit, I must say I was disappointed that, having made a brilliant jest about Philistines, nobody got it
I hope it's only financial restrictions holding back the big gestures, but when I win the lottery (as I inevitably will), we'll find out.
https://twitter.com/freddybinyusuf/status/1031255757235412994
May I refer you to the Gospel of Mark, chapter 12, verses 41-44?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark 12:41–44:41&version=net
"If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public."
It is spread over several years.
So it’ll contribute bugger all in tax cuts/spending the day we Leave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzBq0n8dxFQ
Am I in trouble?
Similar to falling in love. One may well fall immediately in lust, but realising that this is the person with whom one wants to spend of one’s life generally takes a bit longer.
I was a bit rude earlier to @Scott_P and I apologise. I agree with him that our government has made a complete mess of the negotiations and I strongly agree that a deal is better than no deal, even Chequers. People going around claiming no deal = £39bn for us with no downsides are indeed deluding themselves.
Faith - as far as I understand it - does not require evidence.
The UK economy is larger than £2,000 billion per year; the extra £39 billion that would have been paid "over a number of years" would be under 1% if the number of years was just 2, and even smaller if longer than that. It would be a surprise for it to be that major a boost as to overcome the issues of sudden imposition of friction of trade alone.
He talks much about tariffs (which would suit us) and signing trade agreements around the world (when? Most take several years to negotiate at best, during which time we're worse off; that £39 billion is doing a lot of work, here).
There's not a single word about Non-Tariff Barriers, which are the most difficult part and the part feared to cause the long queues at ports and potential shortfalls, and is far bigger a deal than tariffs. LeaveHQ has a great post on it here: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128 - which is highly recommended reading for anyone on either side who is concerned about the issue.
My day to day life is of course a whirl of bathing beggars' feet, plucking children from burning buildings and helping old dears across the road.
I think Redwood actually undersells the WTO case by failing to add to the £39bn the annual windfall the UK would receive from tariffs levied on the EU's exports. There is a net windfall to the UK as EU would levy far less on our exports to them, simply because the imbalance in the volume of trade is already so great.
It is a truism that one must take the greatest possible care when dealing with and/or receiving any form of hospitality or benefits-in-kind from people or organisations with chequered / criminal pasts. This applies to politicians, even well-meaning, naive ones, as it does to banks or anyone, frankly. And if any funding has been received from such sources, well ..... you could be in big trouble. Legally if not politically.
What criteria would you use?
Turning water into wine?
Gey your fucking story straight,, guys....
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2018/08/20/non-tariff-barriers-the-eu-has-to-play-by-wto-rules/
"the EU has built World Trade rules into its own legal structures. The WTO, for example, has a Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement to deal with just such issues, and a Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement for agriculture. These require a WTO state to accept product from another WTO state as complying with standards unless there is an objective reason to establish they do not comply. The EU has and uses powers to recognise the standards and competent authorities of third countries to be able to import their goods and to comply with its WTO obligations. So hear this all you Project Fearmongers. The EU is a legal construct which also has to live by the rule of international law. Under WTO rules non tariff barriers have been dealt with, so the EU cannot legally mount a Napoleonic blockade against UK goods once we have left. After all, the day following our departure UK produce and products still meet all existing EU standards. I still find it odd that those who most love the EU think the EU would want to try to do this. It would also, of course, be a violation of the EU Treaties themselves which require the EU to develop positive relationships with neighbouring states and to promote trade with them. The WTO has done good work in recent years to make it illegal for countries to impose new non tariff barriers to impede trade. The EU has built these requirements into its own law codes. People on both sides of the Channel will continue to honour contracts and buy and sell to each other after our exit. To suggest otherwise is silly scaremongering."
"Working at the Jobcentre has to be a tense job - knowing that if you get fired, you still have to come in the next day.”
Actually, I’m sure I’ve heard it before!
Turning up saying 'I am God' isn't proof of anything.
Given that - as far as I am concerned - all gods are the creation of people seeking explanations, I find it beyond the realm of the possible for a thought experiment to come to life.
'Margaret Hodge’s foul hypocrisy just beggars belief says STEPHEN POLLARD'
https://tinyurl.com/yb623god
But even if we don't get that deal we absolutely need deals to ensure planes can fly, trucks can drive, people can continue to reside, medicines are mutually recognised etc etc. In short, "no deal" really means lots of little deals but without the overall architecture. The idea that we can walk away from the EU with no deals at all is absurd but the government should have been addressing the possible implications of the lack of a global deal from the very start. Failure to do so weakened our position and, in my view, weakened the prospects of such a deal.
If they want to get such a deal they need to show the EU we are serious about leaving without one, and explain the many benefits of so doing in public"
I think to ask whether one agrees on whether threatening someone to harm yourself even more will help them to see your point of view. There may be a few headbangers who believe there are benefits to "No Deal" but they need to know that those on the EU side know that the balance of evidence does not support this view. In order for such a strategy to have any negotiating leverage we are therefore dependant on the EU feeling sorry for our stupidity (not very likely), or fearful of the instability that we will cause through our petulant behaviour. The latter may work, but it is not a very mature or dignified way to carry out international relationships. The referendum has made us an international laughing stock. We look childish and pathetic. These are the results of faux patriotism and nationalism folks. Thanks Boris.
If Corbyn’s office has been as sloppy over funding as the man himself has been over whom he shares platforms with, I would not rule out the possibility. I suspect the authorities already know and that the intelligence thus gathered will be in a large file somewhere.
As @Nigel_Foremain notes, entering into negotiations that rely on your opponent feeling sorry for you might not be hopeless, but it is certainly not what one would call a strong position.
Venezuela is a rich country. It has the largest reserves of oil of any country.
Bins have been covered in really bad jokes, such as what did the buffalo say to his son when he went off to school? Bison. The promise is that if tourists bin their rubbish the authority will bin the jokes.
But I can't wait until September.
(Can't remember if you're an Arab or a Dee supporter)
He is correct about NTB's being an issue, but his example is that if we leave to WTO then goods will be shipped to the ports and EU customs will check them for conformity to EU rules there and then. This is not how the process works. The process is detailed in depth by the EU and is understood. Currently in the SM, the National agencies all trust each other, so take a car. Today a car made in the SM is taken to a national type approval agency and given a yes or a no for compliance, if a yes then the Manufacturer keeps the paper work in the national country and can ship cars all around the EU. If questioned over compliance by another country it will produce the paperwork. If the Car is made outside the EU then the manufacturer uses a legal entity in the EU to as act as an importer, this entity takes the car to the EU national agency to get type approval, if a yes then the manufacturers legal entity in the EU country keeps the paperwork and then starts to import cars into the EU that can be sold all over the SM. If conformity is questioned then this legal entity of the manufacturer will produce the paperwork to prove. But what does not happen are checks for conformity at the port, unless food, checks of the correct paperwork saying the car conforms, yes.
The EU uses this model because the entity that it can take legal action against is within it's legal jurisdiction.
There are few in Parliament today that had his kindness and understanding
Annoyingly the polls have not moved and Corbyn is on course to be PM
There finished your sentence for you
In terms of the EU or rather the Commission's position, it is indeed clear that their stance is as you say "not be the action of a serious government with the well-being of the nation uppermost in its mind". The Commission doesn't care that much about the impact on EU states and the little people in Europe working in export industries whose livelihoods are linked to a continuation of UK trade post Brexit. What the Commission cares about is the future of the EU project upon which the livelihoods of those in Brussels depend. And as such it is desperate to ensure that the UK cannot be seen to make a success of Brexit, however much pain the EU has to endure to that end, in case the whole EU project starts to unravel on the back of the UK's example.
The irony is that the UK can make a success of Brexit, even if the Commission refuses to play ball, because of the international agreements the EU is obliged to uphold and the imbalance of EU-UK trade which accounts for nearly all of the UK's current trade deficit. So the Commission is left acting as the Holy Roman Emperor without any clothes, desperate that the Remainers running our government don't see through the weakness of its negotiating position.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yBca1ixoEbg
Go now for all our sakes
'May your God go with you'
Free trade deals with the EU are only as complicated as deep we want them to be. A trade deal with Canada wouldn’t need to be renegotiated between uk, if both sides are happy with the CETA deal it’s a case of substituting uk and EU. All the other stuff is identical.