Can someone direct me to a tally of MPs who have changed their minds about Theresa May's deal since the vote was pulled last month?
If there are any (and I have no idea) I doubt they will say publicly. What’s the upside?
A knighthood/damehood?
you need the agonised speech about serious concerns but, with a heavy heart and in consultation with my constituents, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this is the right thing for Britain... any connection or the appearance of a connection to a knighthood is purely coincidental.
This is definitely a market where there is first mover advantage. Yet no one has made the first move yet. Curious.
Why do you think there's a first-mover advantage here? I'd have thought the converse, any MPs thinking of changing their minds would be looking for cover in numbers.
Also, they need some vaguely-plausible hook to hang their U-turn on. Some flim-flam from the EU is presumably being lined up for this purpose.
Stupid question (but I've been away for the last 2 weeks): why do we suddenly need loads of extra ferry capacity, when the existing capacity serves our needs perfectly well? What aspect of No Deal means we are suddenly importing and exporting more stuff?
The same thought occurred to me. AIUI Dover will be blocked due to extra customs checks. However, won't the same checks be needed at Ramsgate, Poole, Hull, etc.? There is still a finite, and presumably reasonably stable, predictable amount of passengers and goods needing to be transported. More ferry capacity is the answer to a question not asked. Extra Processing capacity at Customs is.
Extra processing capacity at landlocked and full beyond capacity Dover?
More, or indeed some, processing capacity at other places. More ferries to and from other ports. Fewer into and out of Dover. But, no more ferry capacity in total is needed.
Can someone direct me to a tally of MPs who have changed their minds about Theresa May's deal since the vote was pulled last month?
If there are any (and I have no idea) I doubt they will say publicly. What’s the upside?
A knighthood/damehood?
you need the agonised speech about serious concerns but, with a heavy heart and in consultation with my constituents, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this is the right thing for Britain... any connection or the appearance of a connection to a knighthood is purely coincidental.
This is definitely a market where there is first mover advantage. Yet no one has made the first move yet. Curious.
Why do you think there's a first-mover advantage here? I'd have thought the converse, any MPs thinking of changing their minds would be looking for cover in numbers.
Also, they need some vaguely-plausible hook to hang their U-turn on. Some flim-flam from the EU is presumably being lined up for this purpose.
If you want the knighthood, you have to be a Leader Of Men. (Sexism intended, it'll normally be men who this idea appeals to more.)
Can someone direct me to a tally of MPs who have changed their minds about Theresa May's deal since the vote was pulled last month?
If there are any (and I have no idea) I doubt they will say publicly. What’s the upside?
A knighthood/damehood?
you need the agonised speech about serious concerns but, with a heavy heart and in consultation with my constituents, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this is the right thing for Britain... any connection or the appearance of a connection to a knighthood is purely coincidental.
This is definitely a market where there is first mover advantage. Yet no one has made the first move yet. Curious.
Most Tory MPs that are either hardcore remainers or ultra-Brexiteers don't seem to think things through much. Witness the recent confidence vote in favour of May where they'd have been better off switching their votes.
However, most Tory MPs are neither hardcore remainers nor ultra-Brexiteers. The list of potential rebels in December went well beyond those groups and it's from outside those two groups that MPs will start to peel off the rebellion - though not yet, I think.
Stupid question (but I've been away for the last 2 weeks): why do we suddenly need loads of extra ferry capacity, when the existing capacity serves our needs perfectly well? What aspect of No Deal means we are suddenly importing and exporting more stuff?
The same thought occurred to me. AIUI Dover will be blocked due to extra customs checks. However, won't the same checks be needed at Ramsgate, Poole, Hull, etc.? There is still a finite, and presumably reasonably stable, predictable amount of passengers and goods needing to be transported. More ferry capacity is the answer to a question not asked. Extra Processing capacity at Customs is.
Extra processing capacity at landlocked and full beyond capacity Dover?
Logically, would it not make sense to move some of the ferries from Dover to Ramsgate? If the limiting factor is processing before boarding, then you won't need so many ferries on Dover-Calais/Dunkirk - or will the existing services be running half empty?
Dover is not the problem. Calais is. Or any other European port where ferries are parked for days while waiting for the one assigned French customs officer to inspect it. This could rapidly reduce the number of working ferries to zero, should our erstwhile EU partners decide to play silly buggers, or even if they do not but have taken our own government's woeful approach to planning extra capacity for Brexit. At the Dover end, we could just wave everything through (including stowaways) if a crisis loomed. At the French, German, Belgian and Dutch ends, we cannot.
Edit: and note that using alternative ports makes things worse, not better.
I imagine I can hear Orff's O Fortuna in the background when I read this.
I do like that piece
"...[Arthur] Ready my knights for battle; they will ride with their King once more. I have lived through others far too long: Lancelot carried my honor and Guinevere my guilt; my knights have fought my causes and Mordred carries my sins. Now, at last, I will rule. [Aide] Guards. Knights. Squires. Prepare for battle..." (Excalibur, John Boorman, 1981)
The guy who used to do (but no longer does) "Every Frame A Painting" did a sideproject called "Sounds Like Temp". When editing a film the editor may overlay an existing piece of music (the "temp track") to help with the beats. An original tune is then recomposed to prevent a copyright claim. But because the beats are now set, the new tune may sound uncannily like the old one.
Stupid question (but I've been away for the last 2 weeks): why do we suddenly need loads of extra ferry capacity, when the existing capacity serves our needs perfectly well? What aspect of No Deal means we are suddenly importing and exporting more stuff?
The same thought occurred to me. AIUI Dover will be blocked due to extra customs checks. However, won't the same checks be needed at Ramsgate, Poole, Hull, etc.? There is still a finite, and presumably reasonably stable, predictable amount of passengers and goods needing to be transported. More ferry capacity is the answer to a question not asked. Extra Processing capacity at Customs is.
Extra processing capacity at landlocked and full beyond capacity Dover?
Logically, would it not make sense to move some of the ferries from Dover to Ramsgate? If the limiting factor is processing before boarding, then you won't need so many ferries on Dover-Calais/Dunkirk - or will the existing services be running half empty?
Speaking as a cross-channel ferry expert (well, I have twitter) I would opine that the berths at Ramsgate will be too narrow to accommodate the Dover ferries, which have developed a broader girth due to millions of years of evolution in the lower-Kent ecosystem.
Can someone direct me to a tally of MPs who have changed their minds about Theresa May's deal since the vote was pulled last month?
If there are any (and I have no idea) I doubt they will say publicly. What’s the upside?
A knighthood/damehood?
you need the agonised speech about serious concerns but, with a heavy heart and in consultation with my constituents, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this is the right thing for Britain... any connection or the appearance of a connection to a knighthood is purely coincidental.
This is definitely a market where there is first mover advantage. Yet no one has made the first move yet. Curious.
First mover gets publicly laughed at
Either it’s happening privately or it’s bit happening IMV
Can someone direct me to a tally of MPs who have changed their minds about Theresa May's deal since the vote was pulled last month?
If there are any (and I have no idea) I doubt they will say publicly. What’s the upside?
A knighthood/damehood?
you need the agonised speech about serious concerns but, with a heavy heart and in consultation with my constituents, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this is the right thing for Britain... any connection or the appearance of a connection to a knighthood is purely coincidental.
This is definitely a market where there is first mover advantage. Yet no one has made the first move yet. Curious.
Why do you think there's a first-mover advantage here? I'd have thought the converse, any MPs thinking of changing their minds would be looking for cover in numbers.
Also, they need some vaguely-plausible hook to hang their U-turn on. Some flim-flam from the EU is presumably being lined up for this purpose.
Agreed. No advantage in being the backbencher from Dunny-on-the-Wold being called a traitor on the front of the Express. Far better to be the nth one three days later when everyone's bored with the "crmbling rebellion" story.
I think the hook, absent any actual changes to the deal, could be something like "we must remember that the detail of the future relationship is still up for grabs and I'll be fighting to make it look more Brexity/Remainy*, rather than risking a no deal/no Brexit* at this stage of the process." (*delete as appropriate)
At this stage it is all about name recognition which is why the septuagenarians on both sides who fought the time before, and the time before that, are getting all the attention here -- Warren, Biden and, yes, Mitt Romney.
Stupid question (but I've been away for the last 2 weeks): why do we suddenly need loads of extra ferry capacity, when the existing capacity serves our needs perfectly well? What aspect of No Deal means we are suddenly importing and exporting more stuff?
The same thought occurred to me. AIUI Dover will be blocked due to extra customs checks. However, won't the same checks be needed at Ramsgate, Poole, Hull, etc.? There is still a finite, and presumably reasonably stable, predictable amount of passengers and goods needing to be transported. More ferry capacity is the answer to a question not asked. Extra Processing capacity at Customs is.
Extra processing capacity at landlocked and full beyond capacity Dover?
Logically, would it not make sense to move some of the ferries from Dover to Ramsgate? If the limiting factor is processing before boarding, then you won't need so many ferries on Dover-Calais/Dunkirk - or will the existing services be running half empty?
Dover is not the problem. Calais is. Or any other European port where ferries are parked for days while waiting for the one assigned French customs officer to inspect it. This could rapidly reduce the number of working ferries to zero, should our erstwhile EU partners decide to play silly buggers, or even if they do not but have taken our own government's woeful approach to planning extra capacity for Brexit. At the Dover end, we could just wave everything through (including stowaways) if a crisis loomed. At the French, German, Belgian and Dutch ends, we cannot.
Edit: and note that using alternative ports makes things worse, not better.
True but we would end up playing the same game immediately at Fishguard - which would definitely cause problems for Ireland....
Can someone direct me to a tally of MPs who have changed their minds about Theresa May's deal since the vote was pulled last month?
If there are any (and I have no idea) I doubt they will say publicly. What’s the upside?
A knighthood/damehood?
you need the agonised speech about serious concerns but, with a heavy heart and in consultation with my constituents, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this is the right thing for Britain... any connection or the appearance of a connection to a knighthood is purely coincidental.
This is definitely a market where there is first mover advantage. Yet no one has made the first move yet. Curious.
First mover gets publicly laughed at
Either it’s happening privately or it’s bit happening IMV
The likely candidates should be pretty much inured to the laughter of the public, no?
Stupid question (but I've been away for the last 2 weeks): why do we suddenly need loads of extra ferry capacity, when the existing capacity serves our needs perfectly well? What aspect of No Deal means we are suddenly importing and exporting more stuff?
The same thought occurred to me. AIUI Dover will be blocked due to extra customs checks. However, won't the same checks be needed at Ramsgate, Poole, Hull, etc.? There is still a finite, and presumably reasonably stable, predictable amount of passengers and goods needing to be transported. More ferry capacity is the answer to a question not asked. Extra Processing capacity at Customs is.
Extra processing capacity at landlocked and full beyond capacity Dover?
Logically, would it not make sense to move some of the ferries from Dover to Ramsgate? If the limiting factor is processing before boarding, then you won't need so many ferries on Dover-Calais/Dunkirk - or will the existing services be running half empty?
Dover is not the problem. Calais is. Or any other European port where ferries are parked for days while waiting for the one assigned French customs officer to inspect it. This could rapidly reduce the number of working ferries to zero, should our erstwhile EU partners decide to play silly buggers, or even if they do not but have taken our own government's woeful approach to planning extra capacity for Brexit. At the Dover end, we could just wave everything through (including stowaways) if a crisis loomed. At the French, German, Belgian and Dutch ends, we cannot.
Edit: and note that using alternative ports makes things worse, not better.
True but we would end up playing the same game immediately at Fishguard - which would definitely cause problems for Ireland....
I don't think that's a very constructive way to be looking at international relations.
Stupid question (but I've been away for the last 2 weeks): why do we suddenly need loads of extra ferry capacity, when the existing capacity serves our needs perfectly well? What aspect of No Deal means we are suddenly importing and exporting more stuff?
The same thought occurred to me. AIUI Dover will be blocked due to extra customs checks. However, won't the same checks be needed at Ramsgate, Poole, Hull, etc.? There is still a finite, and presumably reasonably stable, predictable amount of passengers and goods needing to be transported. More ferry capacity is the answer to a question not asked. Extra Processing capacity at Customs is.
Extra processing capacity at landlocked and full beyond capacity Dover?
Logically, would it not make sense to move some of the ferries from Dover to Ramsgate? If the limiting factor is processing before boarding, then you won't need so many ferries on Dover-Calais/Dunkirk - or will the existing services be running half empty?
Dover is not the problem. Calais is. Or any other European port where ferries are parked for days while waiting for the one assigned French customs officer to inspect it. This could rapidly reduce the number of working ferries to zero, should our erstwhile EU partners decide to play silly buggers, or even if they do not but have taken our own government's woeful approach to planning extra capacity for Brexit. At the Dover end, we could just wave everything through (including stowaways) if a crisis loomed. At the French, German, Belgian and Dutch ends, we cannot.
Edit: and note that using alternative ports makes things worse, not better.
True but we would end up playing the same game immediately at Fishguard - which would definitely cause problems for Ireland....
I don't think that's a very constructive way to be looking at international relations.
Stupid question (but I've been away for the last 2 weeks): why do we suddenly need loads of extra ferry capacity, when the existing capacity serves our needs perfectly well? What aspect of No Deal means we are suddenly importing and exporting more stuff?
The same thought occurred to me. AIUI Dover will be blocked due to extra customs checks. However, won't the same checks be needed at Ramsgate, Poole, Hull, etc.? There is still a finite, and presumably reasonably stable, predictable amount of passengers and goods needing to be transported. More ferry capacity is the answer to a question not asked. Extra Processing capacity at Customs is.
Extra processing capacity at landlocked and full beyond capacity Dover?
Logically, would it not make sense to move some of the ferries from Dover to Ramsgate? If the limiting factor is processing before boarding, then you won't need so many ferries on Dover-Calais/Dunkirk - or will the existing services be running half empty?
Dover is not the problem. Calais is. Or any other European port where ferries are parked for days while waiting for the one assigned French customs officer to inspect it. This could rapidly reduce the number of working ferries to zero, should our erstwhile EU partners decide to play silly buggers, or even if they do not but have taken our own government's woeful approach to planning extra capacity for Brexit. At the Dover end, we could just wave everything through (including stowaways) if a crisis loomed. At the French, German, Belgian and Dutch ends, we cannot.
Edit: and note that using alternative ports makes things worse, not better.
True but we would end up playing the same game immediately at Fishguard - which would definitely cause problems for Ireland....
We'd not want to, as it would harm us. Even without game-playing, the new regime would need extra capacity that is just not there. Using alternative ports makes things worse, because that too would need more capacity.
We had a funny moment a few months back when some leavers pointed at some undeveloped land right by the Eurotunnel terminal that they said could be used to store lorries. They'd checked Google Maps.
If they'd actually have used their brains they'd have realised that undeveloped land was actually a very steep slope leading up onto the North Downs ...
No Deal 'planning' is fiendishly difficult to get right. Too much and it's project fear and/or a terrible waste of money. Too little and it is either spiking our negotiating position or it's complacency verging on the criminal.
No doubt there is a sweet spot, a goldilocks level of NDP that is just bang on the button, but finding it would be a challenge for the most artful and accomplished of politicians.
No surprise, then, that Chris Grayling is struggling.
At this stage it is all about name recognition which is why the septuagenarians on both sides who fought the time before, and the time before that, are getting all the attention here -- Warren, Biden and, yes, Mitt Romney.
Just seen this in the comments under the Beeb story about Seaborne
1644. Posted by Anti Brexit BBC is the why we cannot trust the BBC on 14 minutes ago So
There it is
Too late Remainers....the Dye is Caste
We've crossed the Rubicon
Deal or no Deal with the EU
It is a pity the BBC does not investigate the EU migrants in dinghies who arrive from France
The BBC are shameless in their skewed anti brexit stories, like Khan, they deliberately undermine ....and are a sad reflection on how low progressives have sunk
Sort of thing that makes me proud to be a died in the wall leaver.
Can someone direct me to a tally of MPs who have changed their minds about Theresa May's deal since the vote was pulled last month?
If there are any (and I have no idea) I doubt they will say publicly. What’s the upside?
A knighthood/damehood?
you need the agonised speech about serious concerns but, with a heavy heart and in consultation with my constituents, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this is the right thing for Britain... any connection or the appearance of a connection to a knighthood is purely coincidental.
This is definitely a market where there is first mover advantage. Yet no one has made the first move yet. Curious.
First mover gets publicly laughed at
Either it’s happening privately or it’s bit happening IMV
The likely candidates should be pretty much inured to the laughter of the public, no?
Better to be day 3 as someone else posted upthread
I am yet to understand a single sort of voter who did not vote for Clinton but would vote for Warren, that would not do so for the generic Democrat.
Warren has this whole anti-corporatist thing, whereas one of Hillary's problems was that she was thought to be corrupt for trousering humungous speaking fees from banks. These were some of the people Trump was aiming for with the "crooked Hillary" line and by saying "Bernie Sanders" a lot, and he definitely got some while others abstained, so there's definitely a constituency there. However, it's complicated by an intersectional turf war between Warren and the Bernie Bro's.
Good luck but I fear ending up with a dozen or more losers, even if I have the winner. Last time, Hillary scared off the other challengers as she had it sewn up. This year it will be more like the Republicans were four years ago, with more than a dozen fighting it out.
The difference between what is an economic migrant and a refugee seems to be far more complex than I would have thought it was. Surely someone sat anywhere in Europe has already successfully fled the persecution they were fleeing...
Good luck but I fear ending up with a dozen or more losers, even if I have the winner. Last time, Hillary scared off the other challengers as she had it sewn up. This year it will be more like the Republicans were four years ago, with more than a dozen fighting it out.
If we can back a dozen losers and the winner at 40-1, then we are ahead are we not ?
At this stage it is all about name recognition which is why the septuagenarians on both sides who fought the time before, and the time before that, are getting all the attention here -- Warren, Biden and, yes, Mitt Romney.
Except that people actually quite like Biden.
Biden has twice run for POTUS and flopped both times. He is also now 76 years old.
Lots of talk about the man from the Hull Council estate... a city I know well having been born there and lived until I was 18, family live their including a son who moved from leafy Berkshire to take a Physics degree and has stayed there to teach in an outstanding Academy school...
... the city did have a substantial majority for leave and I’ve no doubt that this was driven by a combination of (1) a sense that the city had been neglected by successive governments since the collapse of fishing, automation of the docks and the loss of industry such as Imperial Typewriters... all in the 1970s... and (2) levels of East European immigration, especially from Poland (though the city has had a Polich community since WWII).
The City has improved a great deal in the past few years, the City of Culture events in 2017 were a significant boost and these have continued. The waterfront and Old Town are thriving with restaurants, bars and both residential and commercial property available at reasonable rent... out of the centre, a family member has just bought a beautifully restored Edwardian, 4 bed terrace for £190k.
What the city suffers from is its remoteness and the challenge of attracting major employers who will be put off by the limited pool of skilled labour and difficulty of persuading staff to relocate. Channel 4 HQ would have been a brilliant win for the city, but it was never going to happen. What would help? Rail upgrades to Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool certainly. Public Sector organisations to be relocated. Most of all, IMHO, a major, sustained campaign to incentivise commerce and industry into the city backed by promotion that it can be a great place to live. And a rocket up the local education authority or rapid academisation of all schools.
What will Brexit do for the man in the housing authority property? Not a lot. If he had skills now he would be employed and well paid, even in Hull. If there is a rapid exodus of the Polish community it will be dreadful for the local economy.
I chose Hull as an example of somewhere that voted Leave and someone recently told me it had one of the largest council estates in Britain. It sounds like it is on the up but it does seem geographically isolated.
It's a shame you picked Hull. Stoke, Crewe, Preston, Darlington all have similar problems without the isolation issue....
Crewe? It's one of the busiest train stations in the UK with no less than six railway lines converging on it.
I am yet to understand a single sort of voter who did not vote for Clinton but would vote for Warren, that would not do so for the generic Democrat.
Warren has this whole anti-corporatist thing, whereas one of Hillary's problems was that she was thought to be corrupt for trousering humungous speaking fees from banks. These were some of the people Trump was aiming for with the "crooked Hillary" line and by saying "Bernie Sanders" a lot, and he definitely got some while others abstained, so there's definitely a constituency there. However, it's complicated by an intersectional turf war between Warren and the Bernie Bro's.
I haven't really looked into her that much TBH but from the little I've seen she would appeal to me more than Hillary and what I imagine a generic democrat would look like, although I feel the Democrat party is shifting more in a direction I would be comfortable with so I'm judging that generic candidate as not a left of the party.
"Only 2 global powers". I give you China, which demolishes his argument all on its own. Also arguably Russia and France.
The argument is that for all the size of China's military it doesn't have the capability to deploy it outside the immediate area. Britain does. Therefore Britain can act globally and China only regionally.
It depresses me that Andrew is so well thought of, since (as I've gone off about before on here, possibly more than once) he doesn't understand numbers.
The difference between what is an economic migrant and a refugee seems to be far more complex than I would have thought it was. Surely someone sat anywhere in Europe has already successfully fled the persecution they were fleeing...
Yes, you are "required" to seek asylum in the first safe country.
"Only 2 global powers". I give you China, which demolishes his argument all on its own. Also arguably Russia and France.
The argument is that for all the size of China's military it doesn't have the capability to deploy it outside the immediate area. Britain does. Therefore Britain can act globally and China only regionally.
You're confusing Global Power with Global Military Power.
"Only 2 global powers". I give you China, which demolishes his argument all on its own. Also arguably Russia and France.
The argument is that for all the size of China's military it doesn't have the capability to deploy it outside the immediate area. Britain does. Therefore Britain can act globally and China only regionally.
The difference between what is an economic migrant and a refugee seems to be far more complex than I would have thought it was. Surely someone sat anywhere in Europe has already successfully fled the persecution they were fleeing...
The prickish aspect is that the complexities shouldn't even be considered just to encourager les autres, particularly in the context of this kind of crap currying favour with other pricks who may help his leadership bid.
The difference between what is an economic migrant and a refugee seems to be far more complex than I would have thought it was. Surely someone sat anywhere in Europe has already successfully fled the persecution they were fleeing...
Yes, you are "required" to seek asylum in the first safe country.
The question is, what happens if you don't.
The EU is borderless so the asylum seekers should be free to seek asylum in any EU country as soon as they reach the safety of the EU.
I am yet to understand a single sort of voter who did not vote for Clinton but would vote for Warren, that would not do so for the generic Democrat.
Warren has this whole anti-corporatist thing, whereas one of Hillary's problems was that she was thought to be corrupt for trousering humungous speaking fees from banks. These were some of the people Trump was aiming for with the "crooked Hillary" line and by saying "Bernie Sanders" a lot, and he definitely got some while others abstained, so there's definitely a constituency there. However, it's complicated by an intersectional turf war between Warren and the Bernie Bro's.
OK, thanks. I *sort* of see it. I doubt it is enough though.
"Only 2 global powers". I give you China, which demolishes his argument all on its own. Also arguably Russia and France.
The argument is that for all the size of China's military it doesn't have the capability to deploy it outside the immediate area. Britain does. Therefore Britain can act globally and China only regionally.
You're confusing Global Power with Global Military Power.
That's what we're talking about, if you read the original post.
At this stage it is all about name recognition which is why the septuagenarians on both sides who fought the time before, and the time before that, are getting all the attention here -- Warren, Biden and, yes, Mitt Romney.
Except that people actually quite like Biden.
Biden has twice run for POTUS and flopped both times. He is also now 76 years old.
Some people take a while to mature...
He was (a perhaps surprising) success as vice president, is widely liked within the Democratic party, and (for now) polls better than anyone against Trump.
Whether he'll even run is an interesting question, but as a candidate, he is way ahead of either Warren or Romney.
The difference between what is an economic migrant and a refugee seems to be far more complex than I would have thought it was. Surely someone sat anywhere in Europe has already successfully fled the persecution they were fleeing...
Yes, you are "required" to seek asylum in the first safe country.
The question is, what happens if you don't.
Then surely as you cross the border from say Hungary to Austria you move from being a refugee to an economic migrant.
The difference between what is an economic migrant and a refugee seems to be far more complex than I would have thought it was. Surely someone sat anywhere in Europe has already successfully fled the persecution they were fleeing...
Yes, you are "required" to seek asylum in the first safe country.
The question is, what happens if you don't.
The EU is borderless so the asylum seekers should be free to seek asylum in any EU country as soon as they reach the safety of the EU.
The difference between what is an economic migrant and a refugee seems to be far more complex than I would have thought it was. Surely someone sat anywhere in Europe has already successfully fled the persecution they were fleeing...
Yes, you are "required" to seek asylum in the first safe country.
The question is, what happens if you don't.
I don't think that's right? Someone mentioned the Dublin Convention the other day but it didn't seem to be about requirements for asylum seekers - what it said was that a country where you do request asylum is within its rights to shunt you back to a previous safe country that you've passed through. But that's a statement about responsibilities for states, not responsibilities for asylum seekers.
The difference between what is an economic migrant and a refugee seems to be far more complex than I would have thought it was. Surely someone sat anywhere in Europe has already successfully fled the persecution they were fleeing...
Yes, you are "required" to seek asylum in the first safe country.
The question is, what happens if you don't.
The EU is borderless so the asylum seekers should be free to seek asylum in any EU country as soon as they reach the safety of the EU.
That's what makes a nonsense of their case. If they are able to successfully gain residency in France, they can then move to Britain anyway. OK, so that won't be true for much longer, but still...
The difference between what is an economic migrant and a refugee seems to be far more complex than I would have thought it was. Surely someone sat anywhere in Europe has already successfully fled the persecution they were fleeing...
Yes, you are "required" to seek asylum in the first safe country.
The question is, what happens if you don't.
I don't think that's right? Someone mentioned the Dublin Convention the other day but it didn't seem to be about requirements for asylum seeks - what it said was that a country where you do request asylum is within its rights to shunt you back to a previous safe country that you've passed through. But that's a statement about responsibilities for states, not responsibilities for asylum seeks.
Yes, my post was a little inaccurate in that regard. The UK is however allowed to deport asylum seekers to France (or another EU safe country) on the grounds it was their place of entry into the UK.
The difference between what is an economic migrant and a refugee seems to be far more complex than I would have thought it was. Surely someone sat anywhere in Europe has already successfully fled the persecution they were fleeing...
Yes, you are "required" to seek asylum in the first safe country.
The question is, what happens if you don't.
Then surely as you cross the border from say Hungary to Austria you move from being a refugee to an economic migrant.
Which no doubt helps to explain why the number of people crossing the Med is 100k+ whereas the number of people crossing the Channel is 100+
"Only 2 global powers". I give you China, which demolishes his argument all on its own. Also arguably Russia and France.
The argument is that for all the size of China's military it doesn't have the capability to deploy it outside the immediate area. Britain does. Therefore Britain can act globally and China only regionally.
You're confusing Global Power with Global Military Power.
That's what we're talking about, if you read the original post.
Fair. A revealing window into the Brexiteer mentality, nevertheless.
Stupid question (but I've been away for the last 2 weeks): why do we suddenly need loads of extra ferry capacity, when the existing capacity serves our needs perfectly well? What aspect of No Deal means we are suddenly importing and exporting more stuff?
It's not the "more stuff", it's the "longer time to process it due to increased bureaucracy", which means a port can handle fewer ships a day.
As I pointed out to LuckyGuy1983 the other day, mitigation processes are being put into place and hopefully thay will cope and a no-deal Brexit will be undramatic (the problems will be un-newsworthy IMHO). But at the moment uncertainty rules.
No Deal Brexit effects will be highly newsworthy. However Corbyn seems to be manoeuvring towards a May Deal with figleaves, to preempt any No Brexit move by his party. So I guess May's Deal is more likely to happen. And, frankly, the only sensible form of No Deal planning is to make sure you have a Deal. Whatever its faults, May's Deal is a deal and it's available.
She made the same point yesterday (and I agree with her)
We have a moral duty to assist asylum seekers. We may be interested in economic migrants. We are not interested in law breakers.
Are any of those views unethical?
It does not help to conflate the categories
Is Cyclefree a candidate for leadership of the Tory party? Did she say that the UK should be able to reject asylum applications out of hand without any due process, regardless of the circumstances of the case?
The difference between what is an economic migrant and a refugee seems to be far more complex than I would have thought it was. Surely someone sat anywhere in Europe has already successfully fled the persecution they were fleeing...
Yes, you are "required" to seek asylum in the first safe country.
The question is, what happens if you don't.
Then surely as you cross the border from say Hungary to Austria you move from being a refugee to an economic migrant.
No, you don't stop being a refugee in either law or common sense; You'd still be a refugee if you were living in Hungary, and you don't stop being a refugee by leaving Hungary. I guess in plain English you could say you're an economic migrant as well as a refugee, but note that there are non-economic reasons to want to be in a different "safe" country; For instance, wanting to be somewhere where you speak the language, or where you have friends or family, isn't economic. (Although those things could in turn have economic motivations.)
At this stage it is all about name recognition which is why the septuagenarians on both sides who fought the time before, and the time before that, are getting all the attention here -- Warren, Biden and, yes, Mitt Romney.
Except that people actually quite like Biden.
Biden has twice run for POTUS and flopped both times. He is also now 76 years old.
Some people take a while to mature...
He was (a perhaps surprising) success as vice president, is widely liked within the Democratic party, and (for now) polls better than anyone against Trump.
Whether he'll even run is an interesting question, but as a candidate, he is way ahead of either Warren or Romney.
Yes, and indeed Biden, like all the others, is said to be pondering a run, but at the moment he wins on name recognition because he was Obama's Vice-President for eight years. It is like the next Tory leader polls show that people have seen Boris and JRM on the telly.
Look back four years at how many GOP runners made the primaries, and the Democrats are not even at that stage yet. The chances are the eventual candidate will be someone we'd not recognise. You could have named your own price for Trump.
Stupid question (but I've been away for the last 2 weeks): why do we suddenly need loads of extra ferry capacity, when the existing capacity serves our needs perfectly well? What aspect of No Deal means we are suddenly importing and exporting more stuff?
It's not the "more stuff", it's the "longer time to process it due to increased bureaucracy", which means a port can handle fewer ships a day.
As I pointed out to LuckyGuy1983 the other day, mitigation processes are being put into place and hopefully thay will cope and a no-deal Brexit will be undramatic (the problems will be un-newsworthy IMHO). But at the moment uncertainty rules.
No Deal Brexit effects will be highly newsworthy. However Corbyn seems to be manoeuvring towards a May Deal with figleaves, to preempt any No Brexit move by his party. So I guess May's Deal is more likely to happen. And, frankly, the only sensible form of No Deal planning is to make sure you have a Deal. Whatever its faults, May's Deal is a deal and it's available.
That's my view, too. Suspect May's Deal will in fact make it, if only because it effectively kicks the Article 50 can down the road. It also has the merit of turning off the UKIP funding tap.
Whether or not we will actually LEAVE completely at the end of 2020 is another matter entirely, and will I suspect gives us considerable entertaining discussion until at least this time next year!
She made the same point yesterday (and I agree with her)
We have a moral duty to assist asylum seekers. We may be interested in economic migrants. We are not interested in law breakers.
Are any of those views unethical?
It does not help to conflate the categories
Is Cyclefree a candidate for leadership of the Tory party? Did she say that the UK should be able to reject asylum applications out of hand without any due process, regardless of the circumstances of the case?
She would be a compelling candidate (to the extent that desiring the job doesn’t automatically make you unqualified)
She said that all asylum seekers who arrived from France should be rejected. Presumably after a process.
She made the same point yesterday (and I agree with her)
We have a moral duty to assist asylum seekers. We may be interested in economic migrants. We are not interested in law breakers.
Are any of those views unethical?
It does not help to conflate the categories
Is Cyclefree a candidate for leadership of the Tory party? Did she say that the UK should be able to reject asylum applications out of hand without any due process, regardless of the circumstances of the case?
She would be a compelling candidate (to the extent that desiring the job doesn’t automatically make you unqualified)
She said that all asylum seekers who arrived from France should be rejected. Presumably after a process.
But isn't that in light of a desire to avoid people risking life travelling across the channel in an overloaded dingy...
as I was going to post in answer to edmundintokyo - the issue is that the people crossing the channel are no longer just a refugee and the idea that they should continue to risk their life seems rather surprising...
Yes, and indeed Biden, like all the others, is said to be pondering a run, but at the moment he wins on name recognition because he was Obama's Vice-President for eight years. It is like the next Tory leader polls show that people have seen Boris and JRM on the telly.
Look back four years at how many GOP runners made the primaries, and the Democrats are not even at that stage yet. The chances are the eventual candidate will be someone we'd not recognise. You could have named your own price for Trump.
True, but his run was exceptional in many ways.
For 2016: Clinton lead in every poll with her name in throughout early 2015 and was presumptive nominee in the media. For 2012: Romney was a widely discussed candidate and led many polls in early 2011 (interestingly so did Trump in a couple of polls, though he didn't in early 2015). For 2008: McCain was in the top 2 or 3 of most polls in Jan 2007 and lead some. For 2008: Obama likewise was second in most polls and a widely discussed candidate in the press.
This time the nationwide leader for the Dem polls is Biden - maybe he should be favourite over Harris/O'Rourke (definitely over the latter, imho). The other thing which jumps out at me is that Harris is polling surprisingly low in many polls, basically the same as Warren (who perhaps deserves more credit than she's getting, though I'm not convinced since name recognition surely makes Harris' high single figures more impressive).
Primaries certainly aren't easy to predict, even at this point, but the eventual winner has tended to be very much on the radar by this point.
She made the same point yesterday (and I agree with her)
We have a moral duty to assist asylum seekers. We may be interested in economic migrants. We are not interested in law breakers.
Are any of those views unethical?
It does not help to conflate the categories
Is Cyclefree a candidate for leadership of the Tory party? Did she say that the UK should be able to reject asylum applications out of hand without any due process, regardless of the circumstances of the case?
She would be a compelling candidate (to the extent that desiring the job doesn’t automatically make you unqualified)
She said that all asylum seekers who arrived from France should be rejected. Presumably after a process.
I strongly agree. How can one argue someone is a genuine asylum seeker if they have already passed through a "free" country such as France, or any other EU country? Once they pass through another country that could offer them asylum they become a de facto economic migrant
Good luck but I fear ending up with a dozen or more losers, even if I have the winner. Last time, Hillary scared off the other challengers as she had it sewn up. This year it will be more like the Republicans were four years ago, with more than a dozen fighting it out.
Yes, I thought about the arb 40 vs 25 but it doesn't compute. At first sight it looks juicy but when you factor in the interest cost on the cash you're tying up, no, not a goer. Only way to make it work is if you build up a portfolio of lays, so then it becomes a 'free' addition to that. My knowledge of American politics is better than the man on the Clapham omnibus but it's not good enough for me to contemplate doing that at this stage. Like you say, the Dem nomination will likely be a dog fight with much fighting and many a dog.
Interesting "thinking" by ambitious ministers on Britain's global post Brexit ole. The latest from Hunt is that the UK will be the invisible chain linking the world's liberal democracies. After Chris Williamson's global moral leadership got laughed out of court perhaps invisible is more realistic, albeit a synonym for non-existent.
She made the same point yesterday (and I agree with her)
We have a moral duty to assist asylum seekers. We may be interested in economic migrants. We are not interested in law breakers.
Are any of those views unethical?
It does not help to conflate the categories
Is Cyclefree a candidate for leadership of the Tory party? Did she say that the UK should be able to reject asylum applications out of hand without any due process, regardless of the circumstances of the case?
She would be a compelling candidate (to the extent that desiring the job doesn’t automatically make you unqualified)
She said that all asylum seekers who arrived from France should be rejected. Presumably after a process.
The only compelling case for accepting these migrants is that they are fleeing tyranny in France.
"Only 2 global powers". I give you China, which demolishes his argument all on its own. Also arguably Russia and France.
In many ways, China is a superpower, and in other ways it is developing as one. However, there is an argument that as an embryonic superpower, it's still treading warily in establishing a global footprint - how often do they send ships into the Atlantic? As such, it is arguably not yet a truly global power in a way that Britain, despite its smaller resources and economy, is.
Now, that's not an argument that I'd push too far but there is some merit to it.
Good luck but I fear ending up with a dozen or more losers, even if I have the winner. Last time, Hillary scared off the other challengers as she had it sewn up. This year it will be more like the Republicans were four years ago, with more than a dozen fighting it out.
Yes, I thought about the arb 40 vs 25 but it doesn't compute. At first sight it looks juicy but when you factor in the interest cost on the cash you're tying up, no, not a goer. Only way to make it work is if you build up a portfolio of lays, so then it becomes a 'free' addition to that. My knowledge of American politics is better than the man on the Clapham omnibus but it's not good enough for me to contemplate doing that at this stage. Like you say, the Dem nomination will likely be a dog fight with much fighting and many a dog.
Simply back the 40 and 'take the value'. Not worth arbing at this point, unless you're trying to build a portfolio of losers; but its not obvious she's poor value even at 25s. Am on the premium charge for Betfair anyway so I'm certainly not laying the 25s there right now.
Comments
Also, they need some vaguely-plausible hook to hang their U-turn on. Some flim-flam from the EU is presumably being lined up for this purpose.
But, no more ferry capacity in total is needed.
Edit: and note that using alternative ports makes things worse, not better.
Either it’s happening privately or it’s bit happening IMV
Australia
Canada
Denmark
EU
Greece
India if you're feeling brave?
?
I think the hook, absent any actual changes to the deal, could be something like "we must remember that the detail of the future relationship is still up for grabs and I'll be fighting to make it look more Brexity/Remainy*, rather than risking a no deal/no Brexit* at this stage of the process." (*delete as appropriate)
Klobuchar is with Betway at 40-1 for POTUS.
They allowed me all the £40 I asked for too.
No doubt there is a sweet spot, a goldilocks level of NDP that is just bang on the button, but finding it would be a challenge for the most artful and accomplished of politicians.
No surprise, then, that Chris Grayling is struggling.
Let's cut him some slack.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1080446162962911232
https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1080452033180848128
But let's try and funnel our discussion more productively.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/
Train station?!?
It is a Railway Station!!!!!!!!!
The question is, what happens if you don't.
2) Cut-and-paste them into Excel
3) Do a bar chart.
Then have a think about whether their cutoff points were reasonable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_People's_Liberation_Army_Support_Base_in_Djibouti
She made the same point yesterday (and I agree with her)
We have a moral duty to assist asylum seekers. We may be interested in economic migrants. We are not interested in law breakers.
Are any of those views unethical?
It does not help to conflate the categories
He was (a perhaps surprising) success as vice president, is widely liked within the Democratic party, and (for now) polls better than anyone against Trump.
Whether he'll even run is an interesting question, but as a candidate, he is way ahead of either Warren or Romney.
Sorry, it is the best I can manage.
Maybe I could do better after a couple of glasses of port.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33153
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position
We're beyond groggy; I'm pooped.
Look back four years at how many GOP runners made the primaries, and the Democrats are not even at that stage yet. The chances are the eventual candidate will be someone we'd not recognise. You could have named your own price for Trump.
Enjoy.
Belated New Year greetings.
As a diversion from the dreadful puns, something slightly more serious:
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/declassified-files-dublin-now-lagging-six-years-behind-uk-in-revealing-state-papers-1-8751795
Who gets to write the history ? Answer, the side which gets its version out there first.
Whether or not we will actually LEAVE completely at the end of 2020 is another matter entirely, and will I suspect gives us considerable entertaining discussion until at least this time next year!
She said that all asylum seekers who arrived from France should be rejected. Presumably after a process.
as I was going to post in answer to edmundintokyo - the issue is that the people crossing the channel are no longer just a refugee and the idea that they should continue to risk their life seems rather surprising...
For 2016: Clinton lead in every poll with her name in throughout early 2015 and was presumptive nominee in the media.
For 2012: Romney was a widely discussed candidate and led many polls in early 2011 (interestingly so did Trump in a couple of polls, though he didn't in early 2015).
For 2008: McCain was in the top 2 or 3 of most polls in Jan 2007 and lead some.
For 2008: Obama likewise was second in most polls and a widely discussed candidate in the press.
This time the nationwide leader for the Dem polls is Biden - maybe he should be favourite over Harris/O'Rourke (definitely over the latter, imho). The other thing which jumps out at me is that Harris is polling surprisingly low in many polls, basically the same as Warren (who perhaps deserves more credit than she's getting, though I'm not convinced since name recognition surely makes Harris' high single figures more impressive).
Primaries certainly aren't easy to predict, even at this point, but the eventual winner has tended to be very much on the radar by this point.
All figures from the relevant Wikipedia pages.
https://twitter.com/foreignoffice/status/1080416493211389952
Nitpick question: is Singapore actually a liberal democracy?
But then we'd have 60m heading to Dover.....
Now, that's not an argument that I'd push too far but there is some merit to it.
Am on the premium charge for Betfair anyway so I'm certainly not laying the 25s there right now.